Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for file Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the promoters of the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall he recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments, thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report he Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings in the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
To be considered on Tuesday 9 January.

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the promoters of the Medway County Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments, thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report he Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings in the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 9 January.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Bicentenary

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding events to celebrate the bicentenary of the United Kingdom. [141563]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend meets with the First Minister on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of matters. I do not think that I would be breaking confidentiality if I said that this particular issue has not figured in those discussions.

Mr. Swayne: The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), told me on 13 December that the Government would mark the bicentenary. Will it feature in any future discussions that the Secretary of State may have? How does the Minister plan to celebrate it, and does he agree that it will serve as a useful rehearsal for the real jamboree that will fall due in 2007, when we can jointly celebrate the huge achievements of the union of our nations?

Mr. Wilson: In the year 2001, I hope that this Labour Government will continue to celebrate by deeds rather than jamborees. We shall do that by continuing the march towards social justice, which the hon. Gentleman will oppose. I have no immediate plans to celebrate the events of 1801. Some people in Ireland will celebrate them, some will not. The less we say to stir that up, the better.

Mr. Desmond Browne: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have been


campaigning for the by-election at Falkirk, West on behalf of the excellent candidate Major Eric Joyce have had our commitment to social justice reinforced by the voters of that constituency? Will he reconfirm to the House that it is not events that will make the people of Scotland celebrate their status as members of the United Kingdom, but a UK Government who share their priorities? Chief among those priorities are the eradication of child and pensioner poverty and the attainment of full employment. That is in this country's grasp for the first time in more than a generation.

Mr. Wilson: Like my hon. Friend, I am especially glad that youth unemployment in Scotland as a whole and in Falkirk in particular is down by 75 per cent. That is a reason not only to rejoice, but to vote Eric Joyce.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the Minister's reluctance to celebrate 1801, but will not he accept that many people in Ireland have benefited from that Union? Some of them have found their nest here as a result of it. Does not he also accept that the anniversary provides an opportunity to restore the best values of our Christian tradition, as represented in the flag of the Kingdom, which combines the emblems of George, Andrew and Patrick?

Mr. Wilson: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Many people throughout these islands have benefited from the Union. Clearly, different views obtain in the island of Ireland about the events of 1801. However, I think that the spirit of Wolfe Tone, as well as that of some of the radicals in the north of Ireland, is something over which any people with liberal and progressive views can unite.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I am Scots-born but have much Irish and other blood in me, so may I invite my hon. Friend not to celebrate the anschluss of Ireland to England 200 years ago? It opened the way to a century's worth of conflict that in some ways still continues. Instead, will he celebrate the great contribution that Irish people have made to Scotland, England and Wales? We live in a multination, multicultural and multirace Great Britain. It is a great country to belong to, but we should not put one nation above another. That admonition applies especially to members of the Conservative party, who want to reduce us all to little Englanders and who are now waving the race card on police crime.

Mr. Wilson: That was a characteristically eclectic question from my hon. Friend. I agree: we should not put one nation or race above the others, but we should celebrate the contributions that all people make to the human family. I want to build bridges and connections between Scotland and all parts of Ireland. I have tried to do my own little bit in that respect through something called the Columba initiative, which celebrates the cultural and linguistic connections between all parts of Ireland and Scotland, especially through the Gaelic language and culture. Historically, that language was as strong in northern Ireland, in the province of Ulster, as it was in the other three provinces of the island of Ireland.
It is tremendously important to build bridges and to prove that all the good social, cultural, educational and historical links are far more important than any divisions based on religion or politics.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I noted the article written by the Secretary of State in The Herald this week, celebrating the Labour Government's new constitutional settlement. In that context, does the Minister agree that if the new constitutional settlement is to work, it will require an element of forbearance and understanding between all parties? Does he also agree that it would be most undesirable if, for instance, Scottish Members of Parliament were to vote tomorrow on the Hunting Bill which concerns England and Wales alone?

Mr. Wilson: I do not agree with that, and I think that we will come to this issue in a later question. It is important to assert that all Members of the House are equal and have equal voting rights. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will be here tomorrow night to vote on hunting, but I suspect that some might also be in Falkirk, hunting foxes of a different variety.

Mr. Grieve: I find the Minister's answer disappointing. He appears to have missed the point that as a result of the constitutional settlement that we are trying to make work, the equality of Members of Parliament has already been breached through devolution. In those circumstances, is it not right that if that is his attitude, it will in due course be necessary to implement measures in this House to have English and Welsh votes on English and Welsh laws, as people in Scotland well understand when they are asked about it?

Mr. Wilson: It comes ill from a Tory to seek that sort of absolutist solution to a relative problem. When legislation that was already devolved administratively was carried out in this House, I do not remember the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues thinking that it was a great constitutional outrage that the Tories ruthlessly used their majority to drive through Scottish legislation against the will of people in Scotland. There is now, by the will of this Parliament, a devolved responsibility to the Parliament in Scotland over certain areas, but that does not change the constitutional position of this House or Members of this House. As soon as one moves away, for populist political reasons, from the theology of devolution—that this House has given devolution freely and willingly to the Scottish Parliament—there is real constitutional trouble. I advise the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not to go down that road.

EU Regional Aid

Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will make a statement about trends in European Union regional aid for Scotland over the last five years. [141565]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): In the period 1994–99, projects worth £2.4 billion were approved, involving £1 billion of structural funds money. The total funds available for the new round of


programmes in Scotland will be £960 million—a reduction of approximately 5 per cent., reflecting a relative increase in Scotland's prosperity.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that the Secretary of State is not aware that over the past six years, for every £200 from the European structural funds that has gone to Scotsmen, only £60 has gone to west countrymen. Does he think it fair that in the next six years the Scotsman will receive 50 per cent. more per year than every west countryman? Bearing in mind that the west country is as deprived and poor as many parts of Scotland, does he not agree that it is wrong that there should be such a loading for Scotland against the west country?

Dr. Reid: I shall say two things to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the funds paid through the structural funds are based on an assessment of need, meeting an agreed criteria. If there is a greater need in Scotland after 20 years of Tory Government, perhaps he should reflect on that.
As far as the settlement at the United Kingdom and the Scottish level is concerned, I am utterly convinced that Scotland has had a fair allocation, and no more than that. We will have achieved that fair allocation because of the need in Scotland and the partnership in the United Kingdom, which has given us a strength in negotiations with Europe that we would never achieve under an independent or separate Scotland. While it is true that 40 per cent. of Scotland gets objective 2 status, I think that I am correct in saying that the hon. Gentleman's constituency also has that status and I should have thought that that was a reason for both of us to be pleased with a Labour Government.

Mr. David Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the important role that European structural funds have played in the highlands and islands, not least in the new city of Inverness? On that note, will my right hon. Friend congratulate the students of Cauldeen primary school in my constituency, who fought for that bid? Does he agree that city status will provide a great boon for tourism and inward investment to the highlands and islands?

Dr. Reid: Yes, I agree on all those points. I think that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we are delighted about the millennium city status that has been conferred on Inverness, which won against stiff competition. Other areas, such as Ayr, Stirling and Paisley, where my hon. Friends also fought hard, will have another opportunity in 2002. My hon. Friend played a widely appreciated role, both before he came into Parliament and outside it. That has been a major contributory factor, along with the presentation work done by the children of Cauldeen primary school—most of whom I met yesterday—in achieving city status for Inverness. We are delighted. That shows what a Member of Parliament can do. Who knows, with Eric Joyce in Falkirk, perhaps it will be in for city status in the not too distant future.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is there any scope for utilising European regional aid to deal with the problems of the beleaguered fishing industry, in particular the fact that the quota reductions that have been announced will affect the whole fleet, not least the

village-based sector of the industry that is substantially represented in my constituency? Can the Minister say whether European regional aid might, for example, fund a proper decommissioning scheme to ensure that effort is reduced to a level at which it is equivalent to the resources available?

Dr. Reid: In terms of the general problem that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised, of course we face some desperate problems with fish stocks in the North sea. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate that. I am convinced that the fisheries talks in Brussels last Thursday secured the best possible deal for Scotland.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What about the Danes and the whiting?

Dr. Reid: We achieve more in the fisheries talks and in everything else that we negotiate in Europe from a position of strength in the United Kingdom than we would ever do if the Scottish National party was trundling along there, particularly as the matter is determined under qualified majority voting. We would have a much reduced power and share in that voting if we got a separate Scotland.
I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about financial provision. That is a matter that Fisheries and Agriculture Ministers will be considering as the implications of the agreement achieved last week are worked through. I appreciate the difficulties that his constituents and many others face.

Mr. Douglas Alexander: In view of my right hon. Friend's earlier answer, will he confirm that the effect of last week's summit in Nice was to increase considerably the number of votes that Britain enjoys in the European Union? Will he also confirm that the summit will further undermine the credibility of any party that argues that independence in Europe is a credible alternative to the strength of Britain's negotiating position?

Dr. Reid: Indeed, I happily agree. The vast majority of people in Scotland realise that too. The result of the talks in Nice and their implications are that the United Kingdom will maintain a major role under qualified majority voting and the new figures for an enlarged Europe. We would be much reduced in a separate Scotland—we would be left much less powerful and much more isolated. That leaves the independence strategy of the SNP in shreds.
That does not surprise me, however, because almost every policy and strategy that the party has tried to devise during the past few years has been left in shreds. Hopefully, by Friday morning we shall see that for yet another one. I pay the SNP one tribute, however: it is on course to do something that the major Scottish teams never managed—to get 10 in a row—but in the case of the SNP that will be 10 by-elections in a row that it is liable to have lost.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): Is the Secretary of State aware that the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament has suspended an inquiry into regional aid, because it cannot obtain the information that it requires from the Treasury


in Westminster? Will the Secretary of State communicate with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor so that the information can be provided, or does he stick to his position that Westminster Ministers should not appear before Committees of the Scottish Parliament?

Dr. Reid: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman starts his question from the wrong premise. It is not my position that Westminster Ministers should never appear at Holyrood; my position—and, incidentally, the position agreed between the two Parliaments and in the concordats that we have all agreed—is that the first responsibility of any Minister is obviously to their own Parliament. Of course, we will provide sufficient information to satisfy the Scottish Parliament and its Committees.
On the eve of a very important by-election in Scotland, where we have the highest employment since 1960, the lowest unemployment since 1976 and the lowest inflation, where youth unemployment has been slashed by 79 per cent. and there is strong growth in the economy and rising living standards, it is extraordinary that the major question the SNP chooses to ask is on a matter of protocol in one of the Committees of the Scottish Parliament. That speaks volumes for the confidence of the SNP as well as its politics.

New Deal

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What estimate he has made of the number of young people who have benefited from the new deal since 1997. [141566]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The new deal has been a tremendous success in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "It says here."] It does not say that here—I can say it off the top of my head: 29,200 young people are off the dole and in work. That is 4,200 more than we pledged, three years ago, that we would get off the dole and into work. We have met that pledge—as well as many others.

Mr. Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend remember that, before 1997, a third of a million young people languished on the dole for more than a year? At present, the figure is 6,000. Does he reject decisively the Opposition programme to abolish the new deal? Will he welcome the fact that 400 people in Falkirk, West have gone off the dole and into the new deal?

Dr. Reid: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It will be remarked as one of the major achievements of the Labour Government that we have so attacked the waste of unemployment and the waste of young lives that we have cut by no less than 79 per cent. the number of young people who are unemployed in Scotland. That has been noticed; it is something for which our candidate, Eric Joyce, has been given considerable thanks by the people of Falkirk.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the programme would be abolished by the Tories, but he should not forget that not only did the Tories oppose the new deal, but the SNP refused to back the windfall tax to finance it. They would have left those young people sitting on the dole.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: We appreciate that the Secretary of State has to go on and on about Falkirk today, but the new deal affects the whole of Scotland and the whole country. Is it not true that the new deal has achieved only what would have been achieved anyway because of the strong economy that the Labour Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government? The new deal is nothing more than an expensive soundbite. A huge amount of taxpayers' money has been spent on glossy brochures and a lot of bureaucrats' time has been wasted. That time, money and energy could have been put to far better use for the young people of Scotland than the new deal—which is only about talk and not about action.

Dr. Reid: I have only three things to say to the hon. Lady. First, the Tory party should improve its media monitoring because, unfortunately, about two hours ago the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—an independent body—issued a report on the new deal, which shows that long-term youth unemployment would be twice as high without the Government's new deal. So she is wrong on her first point. Secondly, I do not think that her remarks will be taken as anything other than slightly offensive—perhaps unintentionally—by the employment staff who have done so well in reducing unemployment. Thirdly, I wish her and all her relations in Inverurie a very merry Christmas.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Starrs Judgment

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If she will make a statement on the consequences of the Starrs judgment. [141587]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The judgment of the Court of Session in Starrs and Chalmers in November 1999 indicated that prosecution before a temporary sheriff in Scotland did not constitute a fair hearing under article 6 of the European convention on human rights because a temporary sheriff had insufficient security of tenure. Consequently, the Scottish Executive, who are responsible for the administration of justice in Scotland, stopped using temporary sheriffs and judges and promoted legislation—the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Act 2000—to provide for the appointment of part-time sheriffs who would have security of tenure. The first such sheriffs commenced work in October 2000.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank the Advocate-General for that answer. Is she aware and does she agree that, despite the further ramifications following the findings of the Court of Session, that case could have serious consequences for the administration of justice involving lay members and an irreparable effect in England and Wales? Does her advice extend to advising those in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland, as this is a major issue for justice in the United Kingdom?

The Advocate-General: I am not sure whether I follow the hon. Gentleman's question. A successful challenge was made under the ECHR in particular circumstances that applied only to Scotland. Of course there may be ramifications. As he will know, the Lord Chancellor took steps to enhance the security of tenure of part-time judges in England. On the long-term consequences, any challenge that is made will be considered in the particular circumstances of the case. I am sure that our jurisprudence is sufficiently flexible to take account of any change that may be made.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Minister accept that that is an important issue, but far more important to my constituents and the people of Falkirk is the discussion that they are having in the pubs and clubs about how much better they are under the Labour Government? I was speaking to one of my in-laws yesterday, and Joyce said that we at e much better under the Labour Government than we were before. Does the Minister agree?

The Advocate-General: I am sure that Starrs and Chalmers is the talk of the pubs and clubs throughout Scotland, but I hope that there is at least some understanding in those conversations of the importance of the ECHR to Scotland and, indeed the United Kingdom.

Human Rights Act 1998

Mr. John Bercow: What discussions she has had with the Home Secretary about the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on Scottish law. [141588]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): There is frequent contact between my office and the Home Department, both at official and ministerial level, about matters of common interest, including human rights.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Advocate-General for that reply. Is the hon. and learned Lady aware that there was widespread disgust in the country at the initial Scottish Appeal Court ruling that an individual accused of drink driving should not be obliged to state whether he or she was the registered keeper or the driver at the material time and that the decision of the Law Lords to overturn that perverse ruling was widely welcomed by my constituents and those of other tight hon. and hon. Members? Will she accept that, in the light of the passage of the pernicious Euro-inspired Hun tan Rights Act 1998, it is essential that she should be able to offer us an assurance that there will be no repetition of such unjust, pernicious and untenable cases in Scotland in future?

The Advocate-General: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, as Advocate-General, I argued that case before the Privy Council with some success. I argued it on the basis not of disgust, perniciousness or any other matters, but of logic and rationality. I am pleased to say that those arguments were upheld.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Lay Magistracy

Mr. Howard Flight: If she will make a statement about the future of the lay magistracy. [141591]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 14 November.
The Government have recently published a report—indeed, on Thursday—on results of research into the role of the lay and professional magistracy. I reiterate that we are committed to a continuing role for both types of judiciary in the criminal courts. Each brings a different approach and a different range of experience to the court. Making effective use of that experience can only be to the benefit of the community. The report is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. If you have a spare moment this Christmas, you might like to get a copy and read it. I commend it to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Flight: The report, "The judiciary in the magistrates' courts", to which the Parliamentary Secretary refers, in many ways contrasts and contradicts the Auld report, which has broadly recommended a professional magistracy. The judicial report finds overwhelmingly in favour of a continuing lay magistracy. Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the Government have already accepted the essence of "Judiciary in the Magistrates Courts", which the Home Office commissioned?

Jane Kennedy: I hesitate to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but Lord Justice Auld's report and its detailed conclusions have not yet been published. It would be premature to comment on his review before it has been completed. However, we have reached the provisional conclusion that the current jurisdiction of lay magistrates should be preserved for cases carrying a penalty of up to six months' imprisonment. It is important to note the research report's conclusion that to abolish or greatly diminish the role of the lay magistracy would not be widely understood or supported in the community.

Mr. Barry Jones: Could I persuade my hon. Friend that, if it is working, it should not be fixed? Does she agree that it is not good for the morale of voluntary magistrates, of whom there are many thousands throughout the country, for rumours about switching to stipendiaries constantly to emerge from London? Will she knock those rumours on the head, pay tribute to hard-working magistrates and kindly consider receiving from me in the not too distant future a deputation on those matters?

Jane Kennedy: I am always willing to receive a deputation and representations from my right hon. Friend. I have sought to do my level best to allay the fears of lay magistrates, which are based on wrong and misleading


press reports of the Government's intentions. In a recent speech to the Magistrates Association, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor said:
The promotion of volunteering is an objective of Government policy. Lay magistrates are volunteers par excellence. They represent local community involvement in the justice system.
We welcome their hard work, and long may it continue.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): The Minister, with her usual approach of sweet reasonableness, suggests that the Government are supporting lay magistrates, but I am sorry to have to put it to her that the facts directly contradict that.
The Minister talks of coverage in the national press. Thanks to the very hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), has it not been made clear recently in the national press that her Department is telling magistrates courts that they will have to close because of costs imposed on them as a result of the suggestion under the Human Rights Act 1998 that those wearing handcuffs cannot be seen in public areas because it might be thought to offend against article 3 of the convention, prohibiting inhuman treatment or torture, which of itself is an insult to magistrates courts?
The costs of converting magistrates courts would be too high, so the Government will be closing rural magistrates courts in Oswestry and elsewhere.
The Government's sweet, honeyed tones are undermined by the facts of what they are doing. Will she reject what officials are currently saying and make it clear that there is no question of inhuman treatment or torture in magistrates courts and that the costs of conversion do not mean that every rural magistrates court has to close?

Jane Kennedy: As this is the season of good will, I shall not respond to the tone in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question. I do not seek to sugar a bitter pill. I am genuine when I extol the role that the lay magistracy plays in the administration of criminal justice. I do not expect magistrates courts closures to result directly from the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. Many smaller or remote magistrates courts lack suitable facilities for holding defendants in custody. It is essential that the magistrates courts committees carry out their part in making sure that the courts and services that they provide are modern and that the courts are fit for their purpose.

Mr. David Taylor: I have this morning tabled an early-day motion signed by 175 hon. Members who represent all parts of the political and geographical spectrum. It celebrates the work, commitment, dedication and expertise of the 30,000 lay magistrates who deliver justice in local communities. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that she and others will resist any Home Office attempt to subvert and subordinate the role of lay magistrates in a way that would lead to their control and supervision by retitled stipendiary magistrates? Such a move would be most vigorously opposed, not least by members of the Magistrates Association such as myself.

Jane Kennedy: The role of stipendiary magistrates courts—or district judges (magistrates courts) as we now call them—is important. They play a vital role in

supporting lay magistrates benches throughout the country. We could not manage without their important contribution to the work of the criminal courts.
I welcome the early-day motion that my hon. Friend has tabled. In other circumstances, I might have been persuaded to sign it myself.

Courthouse (Colchester)

Mr. Bob Russell: What plans he has to finance the building of a new courthouse at Colchester. [141592]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I recently visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency and saw the magistrates court at the town hall for myself. I accept that present conditions are unsatisfactory and require improvement. A bid has been made to my Department for improvements, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support it.
Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's superb management of the economy, the Lord Chancellor's Department is able to commission £70 million of improvements and new court buildings in each of the next three years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to welcome that as we approach the season of good will.

Mr. Russell: The closure of many magistrates courts was based on the argument that centralised courts would be provided with the most modern facilities. Although I welcome the Minister's answer, it does not tally with the information that I have received from the north Essex magistrates bench, which has received information from the Essex magistrates courts committee. Will the Minister therefore convene a meeting of the local magistrates, the Essex magistrates courts committee and Colchester borough council, so that we can flush out exactly what is going on? I hope that what the Minister said is correct. If it is, we can get on with building the new courthouse.

Mr. Lock: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman was not able to welcome the very substantial investment that we have made. He asked what was going on, so I inform him that the revenue allocation for magistrates courts in Essex is rising from £7.4 million this year to £8.5 million next year, which is an increase considerably above the rate of inflation. The bid that the magistrates courts committee has put in for new premises in Colchester is being assessed, and I expect that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make an announcement about it before too long. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will just have to wait a little.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that an issue that arises from the financing of court cases in Colchester and elsewhere is the recoverability of conditional fee insurance, which urgently needs to be dealt with by the insurance industry?

Mr. Lock: As always, I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity for linking issues. He is right. The Government's policy is that the premium paid for cover against the risk of having to pay legal costs should be recoverable from the


losing opponent. That ensures that the damages paid to claimants are not unreasonably eroded. In our view, that is the effect of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Although the interpretation of individual agreements is a matter for the courts, the Government believe that recoverability includes premiums on policies taken out before proceedings are issued in any particular case.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister has managed to find money to build a new courthouse in Colchester, but does he think that that helps in the administration of justice while we still have cases such as that of Stephen Downing, in which the Crown Prosecution Service last week said that it had not been notified of the case until 4.30 pm the day before? Will the Minister look into that and report back to the House?

Mr. Lock: I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised his constituent's case and has diligently pursued the matter over a considerable period. The case is a matter for the Attorney-General, and I understand that my noble and learned Friend has spoken to the hon. Gentleman and is looking into the serious questions that he raises. I am sure that he will get back to the hon. Gentleman before too long.

Violent Parents

Ms Sally Keeble: What measures she is taking to protect children from violent parents. [141593]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Children Act sub-committee of the Advisory Board on Family Law has produced a report on parental contact in cases in which there is domestic violence. The Lord Chancellor and the president of the family division in the High Court are considering what further action may be necessary.

Ms Keeble: Is my hon. Friend aware of a serious case in my constituency in which a woman was threatened with prison for contempt of court because she had refused her violent ex-husband access to her child? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation along the lines of the best practice guidelines set out by the Children Act sub-committee, first, so that the whole House can properly debate important issues of access and parents' roles in relation to their children and, secondly, to ensure that children throughout the country are given equal protection? Despite the best practice guidelines, no safety net was immediately available to my constituent.

Jane Kennedy: I am aware of the representations that my hon. Friend has made and of the case to which she refers. I remind her that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is not persuaded at this time that legislation is necessary to protect children from domestic violence during contact with a non-resident parent. Those are extremely difficult matters and the enforcement of contact orders is particularly sensitive. Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is, of course, a contempt of court and can be punished with a fine or imprisonment, but such punishment may not be appropriate, and the courts have to make extremely difficult decisions, taking into account all the circumstances of each case.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: The Government have been widely condemned for refusing to impose legal constraints on child carers who smack children. When the consultation on that matter has been completed, will it be the subject of open debate and a free vote in the House, or will the Government continue simply to be guided by their own opinion polls?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman catches me slightly off guard on a policy issue that is not my responsibility. The consultation period has ended, and the Lord Chancellor is now directly consulting the president of the family division to determine what guidance and best advice to give to the courts for dealing with those difficult and extremely sensitive cases.

Magistrates Court Closures

Mr. David Heath: What guidelines have been issued to newly constituted magistrates courts committees on local magistrates court closures. [141594]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I have personally endorsed the revised good practice guide on courthouse closure issued by the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees. That should be issued to all magistrates courts committees shortly. The Government encourage courts committees to follow the practices and advice in that document.

Mr. Heath: I hope that the guidance will include a reference to the importance of local magistrates courts in rural areas. The effect of consolidating magistrates courts committees into large areas to conform with police authority areas is that those committees are now very remote from many of the rural areas that they serve. Will the Minister guarantee, for instance, that Frome magistrates court will still be open in five years?

Jane Kennedy: It would be wrong of me to give any such guarantee. I may not be in my current position in five years' time—who knows? The guidance to which I referred includes the factors to be taken into consideration when reviewing accommodation needs. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government continue to believe that it is for local magistrates courts committees, which are drawn from magistrates who are local, who know the area and who are able to determine what is best for that area, to organise their resources and their courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Electronic Voting

Fiona Mactaggart: What plans she has to bring forward proposals on electronic voting in the House. [141605]

Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on her proposals for electronic voting in the House. [141610]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): It will, of course, be for the House to decide whether it wishes to adopt electronic voting, but the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has received representations on the matter, and has decided to stage an exhibition on the means of electronic voting. [Laughter.] This will take place in the Upper Waiting Hall in the week beginning Monday 19 March.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Despite the raucous laughter of Opposition Members, I think that an exhibition might be a good means by which Members can educate themselves about the ways in which electronic voting could enable us to waste less time in this place. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do more than stage an exhibition and to ascertain whether she can take action?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right to say that there are different means by which votes could be recorded electronically. As it was fairly clear from the reaction to the initial report from the Modernisation Committee that members had some doubts and reservations about the different possibilities available, I think that it is important for hon. Members to have the opportunity to take a look and to judge for themselves.

Mr. Bercow: The exhibition sounds a truly ghastly prospect. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), does the right hon. Lady accept that the traditional method of voting in the Division Lobbies provides Members with invaluable opportunities informally to approach Ministers and shadow Ministers, to confer with their parliamentary colleagues, to rally support for their chosen causes and, on the extraordinarily rare occasions when he turns up in the House, perhaps even to buttonhole the Prime Minister? Does the right hon. Lady agree that, for those four reasons, she should stand for tradition and resist the Maoist revolutionaries on the Government Back Benches?

Mrs. Beckett: Let me gently remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is here for Prime Minister's Question Time more often than his predecessor as a result of the way in which it is now arranged. I have some sympathy with the basic point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the benefits of Members being able to mix in the Lobby when a Division is called. It is my understanding—I was not a member of the Modernisation Committee at the time—that one of the things that caused problems when the House considered electronic voting initially was that some hon. Members were under the impression that it would not be possible to combine electronic means of registering votes with the opportunity to mix that takes place in the Lobby. That is not the case, and that is the premise on which the

Committee has discussed the matter. None of that is affected by a study of the means of recording votes, which is what is proposed in the exhibition.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I from the Labour Benches agree with every word uttered by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)?

Mrs. Beckett: It is always open to one hon. Member to agree with another.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Do Labour Back Benchers not realise that by proposing electronic voting they are cutting their own throats? If they want to have so little contact with other parliamentarians that they do not even wish to go into the Division Lobbies to vote in person, why do they not do us all a favour and stop standing for election, to make way for people who want to do a job of work in the House?

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is, of course, a serious parliamentarian, doing hits job does not seem to include having the capacity to listen. As I pointed out to the House, it is perfectly possible to introduce electronic means of recording votes, without losing the principle. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). There is no reason why the two should not be combined. It was not the Government but the all-party Modernisation Committee that made the proposal in the first place, before I was a member of the Committee.

Mr. David Winnick: Although one should be very careful who one's allies are in this place, may I ask my right hon. Friend what is wrong with our present system of voting? Is she aware that although opinion on the Labour Benches is bound to be divided, many of us take the view that we should continue with the system that has been used for many years?

Mrs. Beckett: It is interesting to hear my hon. Friend's views. If a proposal to introduce an electronic method of voting is introduced, it will be for the House as a whole to take a view. It will be a House matter and there will be a free vote.

Mr. Edward Leigh: It is good to hear from old lags occasionally on such subjects.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Here is another.

Mr. Leigh: And here is another. The disadvantage of electronic voting is that Ministers will be able to nip in, tap a button and nip out again. The advantage of the present system is that they have to shuffle through the Lobby for 10 or 15 minutes. I know that it is an awful bore for Ministers to have to listen to the peasantry—that is, Back Benchers—but occasionally the mandarins get it wrong and the peasants get it right.

Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said a few moments ago, the proposal did not come from Ministers or from the Government. It came from the peasantry.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Baithwaite Report

Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress the Commission has made on the implementation of the Braithwaite report. [141606]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Considerable progress has been made since the debate in the House on 20 January 2000. The Commission thereafter appointed an implementation manager to carry forward the implementation of the report's principal recommendations on an agreed timetable. Two reports detailing the steps taken have been made to the Commission and both are posted on the parliamentary intranet.

Mrs. Fitzsimons: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Is he aware of the frustration felt by many hon. Members who speak to him privately about the progress being made by the Commission, post-Braithwaite? Will he consider alternative mechanisms that would facilitate the greater efficiency, transparency and accountability that Braithwaite was meant to bring to the work of the commissioners?

Mr. Kirkwood: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for her interest in the matter. I share her frustration and I understand that hon. Members in all parts of the House are perplexed about the way in which the place works. The Braithwaite Commission dealt more with strategic planning, effective management and financial control than anything else, but I detect a view in all parts of the House that some of the issues should be taken forward as soon as possible. Once we see the report of the Senior Salaries Review Body, which is expected in February, I shall be willing to meet informally—possibly it would be best to do so in concert with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who is the Chairman of the Finance And Services Committee—with some of the hon. Lady's colleagues to find out the views of Back-Bench Members and help them to achieve their own ends.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to read the Information Committee report on computerisation for hon. Members? Has he noted that the rules of the House, which bind the Commission as well, prevent us from using efficiently the tens of millions of pounds that are being wasted on information technology in this place?

Mr. Kirkwood: The issue is before the Commission, particularly the way in which the departments of the House are acquiring their own IT equipment. We shall consider that as part of the Audit Committee process in the near future. The Senior Salaries Review Body is

examining Members' services. I counsel hon. Members to wait for the report in February before we take any further steps.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Modernisation Committee

Gillian Merron: If she will make a statement on the proposals she plans to bring forward to the Modernisation Committee. [141607]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee has proposed radical changes in relation to programming and deferred Divisions, which it will want to evaluate in due course. I understand that the Committee is likely to consider matters such as the use of laptops in Committee Rooms in the near future.

Gillian Merron: I welcome the steps that have been taken so far towards the more efficient running of Parliament, which many of my constituents are looking to us to achieve.
I emphasise the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny. Can we look forward to more Bills coming to the House in better shape before we debate them?

Mr. Tipping: One of the more important recommendations of the Modernisation Committee acknowledges that pre-legislative scrutiny can be helpful. It enables us to obtain responses from outside the House, and provides the opportunity for Select Committees to examine draft legislation. The Queen's Speech contained a number of draft Bills. I hope that we can all benefit from such scrutiny and become more efficient as a result of it.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I wish to follow up the answer that the Minister has just given on the scope of the work of the Select Committees. Can the Modernisation Committee look again at the remit of the Select Committees? Several are not linked to Departments, which means that they can be very effective in crossing the boundaries between departmental interests. We should not have to wait until Whitehall sorts itself out. Pre-legislative scrutiny, in a general sense, was carried out in the preparation of the rural White Paper. A holistic approach was taken in that case, and there should be a holistic Select Committee to scrutinise it.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Modernisation Committee, and pursues several of these matters vigorously. I make two points to him. The Select Committees have many powers, and are in a position to use them more widely. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that on some occasions Select Committees can meet jointly to examine issues, such as the rural and urban White Papers, that cross departmental boundaries.

Mr. John Maxton: Given the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister has just given


about the use of laptops in Committee Rooms, would it be beneficial if the House set up one electronic Committee Room, with links to the parliamentary intranet? Such a Committee Room could also provide the means for electronic voting, which would allow us to see how it could operate on a wider basis.

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend is an influential member of the Chairmen's Panel and has great knowledge of these matters. The Modernisation Committee has considered that issue, and I shall draw its attention to his remarks.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Can the hon. Gentleman understand what an affront it is that a Select Committee of the House dealing with matters relating to the Standing Orders and procedures of the House is chaired by—and questions such as those that we have heard this afternoon are answered by—a member of the Executive? Is it not an affront that last Session's sessional report on the Minutes of Proceedings of the Modernisation Committee—a riveting and very quick read for those looking for last-minute stocking fillers, at only £3.40—gives the dates of the Committee's sittings, the names of those who attended and then simply says, "The Committee deliberated"? The following month's minutes also state, "The Committee deliberated", as do the minutes for all the sittings.
Is it not an affront not only to the House but to our democracy that such a Committee is run by the Executive and that the Executive answers for it and produces this kind of a report? Should such a Committee not be in the hands of Back-Bench Members?

Mr. Tipping: I must say that I had hoped for something a little more exciting in my Christmas stocking.
The Modernisation Committee introduces proposals, and consists of hon. Members from both sides of the House. We have had vigorous, stimulating and—dare I say it—lengthy debates about the Committee's report. At the end of the day, these are matters for the House to decide.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

British Indian Ocean Territories

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will propose the establishment of a Select Committee to consider Britain's relationship with the British Indian Ocean Territories. [141608]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The matter is already within the remit of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Dalyell: Given the documents that were revealed under the 30 years rule at Kew—which I brought to the attention of my hon. Friend—as well as the court documents, is my hon. Friend at all shocked by the cynical lying to the House of Commons by the Governments of Harold Wilson and of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? Are we simply to shrug our shoulders and say that that does not matter very much? If there is not to be a Select Committee, how should the matter be pursued? Or should the House of Commons just accept cynical lying?

Mr. Tipping: Of course it matters. My hon. Friend has pursued these matters vigorously since 1967; I believe that he was the first Member to bring them before the House. He mentioned the documents that were disclosed under the 30 years rule. The only factual and accurate sentence in those documents is the one that states:
Mr. Dalyell is not, however, giving up.—[Official Report, 12 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 478.]
My hon. Friend did not give up then and he has not given up now. The way forward is for the Foreign Affairs Committee to look at the matter, which is in its remit, and I hope that it will do that.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I undertook last Thursday to respond to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about "spoiled ballot papers", as he put it, in deferred Divisions. The paper for deferred Divisions is quite simple to fill in. Members are highly experienced in matters of voting and there is no reason why any voting papers should be inadequately filled in or spoiled.
I have given instructions that any voting paper that is not clearly marked with a voting intention should be disregarded. The Chair has, in the past, deprecated the practice of voting in both Division Lobbies as a method of demonstrating a third position. On the other hand, deliberately voting in both Lobbies has long been an accepted way of cancelling out the effect of voting by mistake in the wrong Lobby. I am sure that the almost 80 right hon. and hon. Members who voted both "Aye" and "No" in the first deferred Division last Wednesday were not seeking to correct a mistake.
The circumstances last week may have been novel and exceptional, but the Speaker has a duty, where possible, to ensure that the House's reputation is not damaged. The House has empowered me by its order of 7 November to make the arrangements for recording deferred Divisions. I have therefore instructed the Clerks that, in future, the name of any Member who marks both boxes in a particular question in a deferred Division should not be recorded as voting on that particular question.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful for your advising the House of your thoughts on the matter. However, may I press you a little further, as it strikes me that in a vote, especially of the kind that we are having today—although that is properly in the Division Lobby, and is not a deferred Division—the result may be very close indeed? If, in a free vote in a deterred Division, any ballot papers were disregarded or set aside, presumably by the Clerks, and there was a discrepancy between those who had voted and the number of votes counted, would there be any appeal that Members could make beyond the Clerks—say, to you, Mr. Speaker? A close result could be affected one way or the other by the disregarding of papers held by the Clerks, with all their expertise and integrity, to have been spoiled. That issue could cause some difficulty.

Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, hon. Members can always appeal to the Speaker, which is why we have so many points of order at this time of day.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the armed action involving KFOR

forces and British troops in Kosovo, have you received any indication from the Secretary of State for Defence that he might like to make a statement about military action and the involvement in shooting by KFOR and British troops?

Mr. Speaker: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that the answer is no.

Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask for your guidance on how to use the procedures of the House to obtain information from Ministers. I have recently tabled a number of questions asking for the unit of student funding in higher education for each of the next three years. I have received a reply to each of my questions, but I have yet to receive an answer. We may sing at this time of year about three ships that come sailing by, but all that I want to see sailing by are three figures. How can I get around the Government's stonewalling?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady was good enough to give me notice of that point of order. I can only tell her that I expect Ministers to provide full and accurate information in response to specific questions. If she is dissatisfied with an answer that she has received, she must use other means of pursuing her concerns.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to your ruling on deferred votes, Mr. Speaker. When you referred to the fact that hon. Members sometimes vote twice in the Lobby, you said that they usually did so to cancel out a mistaken vote. In fact, hon. Members often vote in that way because they want to register plainly that they are abstaining. Would you be good enough to keep that in mind if you review your ruling on deferred voting? Your previous remarks suggested that it would not be possible to indicate in deferred Divisions that one is making a deliberate abstention.

Mr. Speaker: I refer to Speaker Thomas, who said in a similar ruling that he deprecated the practice of voting twice if it was used to record abstention. I share his view on that matter.
Does the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) have a point of order?

Dr. Howard Stoate: It was the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, on whether it is possible to register positively an abstention. The practice enables constituents to see that hon. Members have made a positive abstention and have not merely failed to turn up to vote.

Mr. Speaker: That is something that the Modernisation Committee would have to look into.

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents) the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Milburn relating to Human Fertilisation and Embryology not later than Seven o'clock.
I shall speak briefly on the motion, as I do not want to take up the House's time, which should be targeted at the extremely important debate on the regulations.
The regulations are made under section 45 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That section provides for the regulations to be made under the affirmative procedures, which usually ensure automatic referral to Standing Committee for consideration. Debate in Committee is usually time limited to one and a half hours before the Question is put.
The Government were concerned to ensure that regulations such as these had proper time for debate and consideration. We have already made available 10 hours for debate in the Chamber both before and after the regulations were laid. We have also revoked the automatic referral of the regulations to a Standing Committee and have made prime time available in the main Chamber, as we have listened to the points made by hon. Members who are concerned about the issues. We feel that it is extremely important for Parliament thoroughly to debate those issues.
The motion provides for the debate to extend beyond the standard one and a half hours. If it is accepted, therefore, we will have a further three and a half hours of debate before the vote occurs at seven o'clock. I am not aware of any other statutory instrument that has received so much detailed scrutiny and debate on the Floor of the House. Indeed, the staff of the Journal Office do not know of any statutory instrument in their memory that has been accorded so much consideration.
Given the issues at stake and the strong views held across the House, I hope that hon. Members will accept a further extension of consideration of the issues on the Floor of the House. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. David Wilshire: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order?

Mr. Wilshire: No. I want to follow the Minister.

Dr. Liam Fox: Many hon. Members and many people outside will think that the debate is being curtailed too greatly—that we have had too little time between the publication of the final draft regulations and the move to legislate tonight. Many will also feel that it should have been a matter for primary legislation, rather than a statutory instrument which is unamendable. However, there is a great desire for us to continue with the substantive debate. I shall therefore take up the House's time on the issue of process later. We need to move to the issues, which are extremely important, not to take up time on the timetable motion.

Mr. Wilshire: I apologise for rising earlier, although the point could perhaps have been made in a point of order.
I do not want to take up the House's time, but the difficulty on these occasions is that these are emotive issues where there are no official spokesmen for Back Benchers. Over the years I have been here, the tradition seems to have been that every hon. Member who wishes to speak—it is always a relatively small number of hon. Members who wish to speak—has been able to do so and the House has allowed that to happen. On occasions, such as the first capital punishment debate that I was involved in, the Speaker of the day, Speaker Weatherill, allowed the debate to run beyond 10 o'clock.
I am not quarrelling with the Government. I am just expressing regret that there is to be a time limit for those hon. Members who wish to speak. I therefore hope that you, Mr. Speaker could give some guidance on the number of hon. Members who want to speak, so that those who feel strongly can fit their speeches in within the three and a half hours.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents) the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Milburn relating to Human Fertilisation and Embryology not later than Seven o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Human Fertilisation and Embryology

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I beg to move,
That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations, which were laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.
We have held two Friday debates on the regulations. I think that all hon. Members who participated in or listened to those discussions would agree that they have been very good debates. Although passions run high and emotions run strong on both sides of the argument, our debates in the House so far have been thoughtful and reflective. Perhaps most important of all, they have in most part been deeply respectful of the divides that remain between us. I hope that today's debate will continue in that vein of respect and reflection.
It has been clear from our debates so far that it is not a party political issue. We have heard strong speeches for and against the regulations from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, the principle of embryo research was established in the Hun tan Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which was steered through the House by a Conservative Government. For Labour Members, it is a free vote. I hope that Opposition Members will have a free vote, too.
It is not a party political issue, but it is not an easy issue either. Some hon. Members will strongly oppose the regulations on principle. Some are opposed to all forms of embryo research in all circumstances, no matter what the regulatory framework or what the benefits at stake are. They oppose the current law on the same basis. Some oppose in vitro fertilisation treatment on the same basis, too.
I have deep respect for those views. I have heard them argued in the House, often very eloquently. I will listen with care to those points today, but ultimately I disagree with them.
For those who do not take an absolutist position on embryo research, I believe that there are strong reasons to go ahead with the regulations. I want to set out five clear reasons why the regulations should go ahead.
First, there are immense potential benefits from allowing the research to go ahead, particularly for those suffering from dreadful chronic diseases. Secondly, given that those immense potential benefits exist, the regulations are a sensible extension of the current law. Those who support the current law and who support IVF should logically support the regulations, too.
Thirdly, I want to make it clear that adult stem cells are not yet an alterative to embryonic stein cell research. Fourthly, I shall set out the strict regulatory framework and why that will prevent any unnecessary embryonic research if it is no longer needed. Fifthly, I want to make it clear that this has nothing to do with human reproductive cloning.
I want to set out all the five points in turn, but before I do so I shall deal with the suggestion that the measure is being rushed through Parliament. The Donaldson report was published in August; it received a lot of media attention at that time. The Government's response was also set out at that time. We clearly aid that we would introduce regulations to extend the purposes for which

embryos were used in research. We have given people many months' notice of our intention. On 10 November, Lord Hunt and I wrote to all members and peers setting out our intentions and summarising the key issues in the Donaldson report. We have also invited hon. Members to three detailed medical briefings from the chief medical officer over the past two months. We gave the House the opportunity of a five-hour debate on Friday 17 November and a further five-hour debate on Friday 15 December. Never before, in the memory of those working in the Journal Office, has a statutory instrument had so much debate before a vote.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Lady knows from Friday's debate that I support these regulations and believe that they should be passed today. However, she has not explained satisfactorily to the House why this is not primary legislation. Why is it being taken as secondary legislation?

Yvette Cooper: This is secondary legislation because Parliament considered the issue in detail in 1990, and set out a power in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to extend the purposes of research in this way. I shall deal in detail later with the restrictions that apply under the 1990 Act, but Parliament clearly decided at that time to give power to its successors to extend the purposes of research through regulations.
We set out the regulations on 27 November and we revised the wording slightly in response to concerns last Tuesday—a full week ago. There has been plenty of opportunity for hon. Members to debate and discuss the issues. I understand that many hon. Members will not have concentrated on the detail of the issues until the vote was looming because we are all extremely busy. I understand that many hon. Members may feel taken aback at the complexity of the issues, but that would have happened whenever the vote took place.
Many of those who claim that this is rushed are those who would be opposed to the regulations whenever they were put before the House. The idea that this is rushed is not true. We have had plenty of time for debate and it is now time for the House to make up its mind.
I want to set out why the Government believe that this research is so worth while and why the regulations are so important. The purpose of the regulations is to permit embryonic stem cell research. In such cells may lie the key to healing within the human body. Stem cells are cells at an early stage of development. They can differentiate into any number of different kinds of cells or tissues. They are extracted from embryos when they are but five to six days old, when the embryos are clusters of 100 cells that would fit on a pinhead. They are still before the implantation stage and before any sign of neural development. Embryonic stem cells in particular are regarded as pluripotent. They have the potential to become anything—brain cells, nervous tissue or heart tissue—and therein lies their power.
The human body heals and regenerates all the time, but some tissue does not regenerate—no matter what the drugs or the treatment, there is nothing that doctors can do. For the Parkinson's sufferer whose neural cells are destroyed by disease, drugs can alleviate the symptoms for a time, but they cannot put the cells back. For the woman who endures a dreadful stroke, therapy may help


other parts of her body cope with the disability, but nothing can repair that tissue. For the child who falls from a horse or a bike and breaks his neck, no amount of medicine or physiotherapy can repair the broken spinal cord. The tissue simply will not grow and the paralysis cannot be cured.
In stem cells may lie the key to turning all that around. Those injuries, illnesses and diseases that have so far proved beyond the power of medical knowledge could come within our grasp, given the right kind of research. Because stem cells have the potential to become brain tissue, nervous tissue or heart muscle or any of the many tissues that will not regenerate in the body on their own, scientists believe that they hold the key to understanding how to regenerate tissue and how to heal. For those diseases where the tissues will not repair on their own, stem cells may be the only thing on the horizon that holds out any hope. Drugs for those diseases are mere palliatives.
It is little wonder that the Parkinson's Disease Society, Diabetes UK, the Alzheimer's Disease Society, the Huntington's Disease Association, the Royal Society and the British Medical Association back the regulations too.
The potential of stem cells goes far wider, however, as the big killers—cancer and heart disease—could be affected too. Stem cells could be a route to repairing heart muscle or the tissues destroyed by cancer treatment. That is why the British Heart Foundation, the Cancer Research Campaign and Breakthrough Breast Cancer are all supporting the regulations.
The human stories behind those patient groups and organisations make an even more persuasive case. The issue is about a boy paralysed in an accident in a rugby match who will never walk again. It is about a woman with Parkinson's disease who struggles with speech, so that she cannot sing nursery rhymes to her children. It is about a grandfather who cannot enjoy his grandchildren growing up because of a devastating stroke. It is about patients waiting for heart or liver transplants that will never come. For all those family tragedies, stem cell research may provide them with hope.
The regulations are an extension of the 1990 Act. Some people will feel that, no matter how great the benefits that stem cell research could bring, embryo research is always wrong. I respect that view, but I disagree with it; nor does current law embody that view. The chief medical officer's expert group, which drew up the Donaldson report, concluded that the regulations do not raise any new moral issues beyond those that have already been debated and discussed in passing the current law.
Parliament is not being asked to cross the Rubicon today. Given the benefits that such research could bring, I believe that those who support the current law and IVF should also support the regulations.

Mr. Edward Leigh: No one doubts for a moment the enormous advances that have been made in medical science or the enormous advances that may be made to relieve suffering. Everyone accepts those advances. However, is not the hon. Lady concerned that, to advance medical science, we shall be creating a new, cloned genetic blueprint of a human being—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State shakes his head.
However, if we allow it, we shall be creating a genetic blueprint that will result in a new human being that will then be destroyed. We shall be creating the blueprint simply to destroy it. Is that wise? Is it the right and ethical thing to do?

Yvette Cooper: I shall return to the issue of fears about cloning and the discussion on cell nuclear replacement later in my speech. As the arguments are complicated, I shall deal with them later. I shall also happily take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman then.
Now, I should like to address the issues raised by the current law, which already provides that embryo research is legal. However, it is permitted only under strict controls and in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, it is legal already. The fundamental principle of whether and in what circumstances embryonic research might be acceptable has already been debated and was enshrined in law 10 years ago.
Under current law, research can be conducted with a maximum 14 days' embryo development. Additionally, each research project must be individually licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and the HFEA must satisfy it self that there is no other way of doing the research, avoiding embryo use. The embryos must also be donated through informed consent.
Research can only be done for one of five purposes: advances in the treatment of infertility, increasing knowledge about congenital diseases, increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage, developing more effective contraception techniques or developing methods for detecting gene and chromosome abnormalities before implantation.
In 1990, Parliament saw fit to allow research to proceed under those circumstances and that strict regulation. However, Parliament also provided a power to extend those purposes should the development of medicine and science make doing so worth while in future. That is exactly what the regulations do. They extend the purposes for which embryos can be used in research. They do not change the regulatory framework, the strict limits, the 14-day limit or the need for an individual licence from the HFEA. They also do not permit research if there is any other way of doing the research without embryos. They also still require embryos to be donated with informed consent.
All the regulations do is to change the purposes of permitted research to include basic research into stem cells and research into the understanding and treatment of serious disease. The strict regulatory framework that exists for embryo research right now will apply also to the new research, and so it should.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Before the Minister leaves the legal aspect of the matter, is it her understanding that the cell nuclear replacement technique is legal at present, even though it has not been attempted yet?

Yvette Cooper: Yes, our understanding of the current law is that the cell nuclear replacement technique is legal, but only under the strict regulations that apply, and only for purposes that are legitimate under the current law. I shall return to the matter later.
I do not believe that there are fundamentally new moral issues at stake that were not raised in the debate on the 1990 Act. If embryo research on infertility is acceptable, surely research for Parkinson's disease should be too? If embryo research for contraception is acceptable, surely research for muscular dystrophy should be too? That is especially true when the potential for sufferers from Parkinson's disease or muscular dystrophy might be so great.
We are not talking, either, about huge changes in the number of embryos that might be used. Between 1991 and 1998, 48,000 embryos were used in research after being donated by couples going through IVF treatment. A further 250,000 embryos created through IVF were simply destroyed. Given the nature of stem cells, scientists believe that very few embryos would actually be needed to extract the stem cells and generate the stem cell lines that could be used for many, many research projects.

Mr. Fabricant: I believe that there may be some confusion in the House on this matter. Will the Minister confirm that the blastocyst—the group of some 100 cells that is undifferentiated, with no neuron or muscular tissue—will not be grown into a fully formed foetus? Will she confirm that the technique is not cloning, but that individual types of cell will be developed from the blastocyst simply for the cure of disease?

Yvette Cooper: I can certainly confirm that embryos are not permitted to develop beyond 14 days. That is very clear under the law. Moreover, the stem cells, once extracted, cannot possibly develop into human embryos or babies.
As long as IVF continues, hundreds of thousands of spare embryos will be created. Most are destroyed. If Parliament votes against these regulations, hon. Members will deny couples the choice to donate their spare embryos to stem cell research for spinal injury or stroke. Those embryos will be destroyed instead.
Of course embryo research should not be permitted for just any old thing. That is why the regulations specify serious disease. We are talking not about the common cold but about spinal injuries, burns, osteoporosis, stroke, cancer, heart disease—about serious disease and disability.
I believe that those who support IVF, and those who support the current law, should support these new regulations too.

Ms Ruth Kelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although cell nuclear replacement, or cloning, may technically be legal under the existing regulations, that technique will become desirable only when the regulations are extended? In addition, does she agree with the Donaldson report, which stated that the prospect opened up by the technique may go further than was contemplated by the Warnock committee, or by Parliament when it debated these issues?

Yvette Cooper: It is true that Parliament in 1990 did not envisage the possibility of cell nuclear replacement. That technique has been developed since that time, and could not have been anticipated in the debates. However,

it was anticipated in those debates that science and medicine would move on rapidly. That is why provisions for regulations were put in place in the 1990 Act.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the early and late 1960s people were replacing cell nuclei from frogs, mice and other animals, with very positive results? Bob Briggs in Indiana and John Gurdon at Oxford did marvellous things with cell nuclear replacement at that time. We have waited 30 years to consider the question of whether the technique should be used on human beings. That is how science works: it takes a long time to move from work on lower organisms to work on higher organisms.

Yvette Cooper: It is true that the pace of science moves on. It is because of our position in the scientific debate and, more importantly, in the medical and health debate, that Parliament is now being asked to consider these regulations and to allow the research to go ahead.
Over the past few weeks and months, some people have argued, in the House and outside, that adult stem cells provide an alternative. I agree that where alternatives exist, embryos should not be used in research. That is the position under the 1990 Act. However, adult stem cells are not yet a substitute for embryonic stem cells in research.
Some people have argued that adult stem cells are better, or at least as good, or at worst merely a year behind, and that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary. However, the best scientific and medical advice we have is that that is fundamentally not the case. If it were, we would not need to put these regulations before Parliament. We would not need to spend time debating these issues today. The patient groups which have bust a gut lobbying Members of Parliament to support the regulations would not be bothered whether the regulations got through or not. But they are. They are very bothered—and for good reason.
At the current point in our knowledge, adult stem cells are not the easy alternative that some have suggested. Adult derived stem cells are few in number and hard to find. We do not know whether there are stem cells for every part of the body. Those that we can find take longer to grow and develop, and their potential to turn into a wide variety of different cells appears more limited.
Embryonic stem cells are a different story. They can renew themselves and develop into many kinds of cells and tissues. They could hold the key to learning how to turn the clock back on adult cells, and turn them into other cells instead.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: For many of us, the issue is one of principle. The hon. Lady has said that were there a choice, adult cells should be preferred. What is the principle that gives rise to that distinction, which she herself has drawn?

Yvette Cooper: I endorse the principle embodied in the 1990 Act and set out in the Warnock report—that a measure of respect should be accorded to the human embryo. However, the 1990 Act also provides that embryo research, under strict conditions and in certain


circumstances where there are benefits to be had, is justified. I support those principles, which are embodied in the 1990 Act.

Mr. Simon Thomas: We have already heard how science has moved on in the past 30 years, and adult stem cell science could progress similarly. The hon. Lady prayed in aid the British Medical Association's report to parliamentarians, which chimed with our views that adult stem cell research was preferable, but that embryo stem cell research had to be done in order to get to that stage. How will the regulations ensure that further adult stem cell research will not be neglected because of the ease of embryology research?

Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a couple of other points first, I will turn to exactly that point.
Many researchers and scientists agree with the hon. Gentleman's point that the eventual aim is to use adult cells. Perhaps that will mean adult stem cells, perhaps ordinary adult cells in which the clock can be turned back to make them stem cells again. However, we are not there yet. Many people believe that we will never get there until and unless embryonic stem cell research is carried out first. Those embryonic stem cells, with their power and potency, could teach scientists how cells grow and develop, and how to use adult cells as well. Until we make those breakthroughs—either from embryonic stem cells or from adult stem cells—the case for embryonic stem cell research is extremely strong.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential to understand the process of cell differentiation from the embryo to the adult? By not studying embryonic stem cell research, we might miss some vital chemical triggers that cause the important cell differentiation in the early stages of life. Does she also agree that learning the secrets of cell differentiation at that level may give us a clue about cell differentiation going wrong in conditions such as cancer?

Yvette Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend's points, which are extremely important. Those were also the conclusions of the Donaldson committee. We have asked it to consider whether adult stem cells could provide an alternative. It has looked into all the new research on adult stem cells and it has kept looking—and we have kept asking the Committee, even since the report was finished, and it still maintains that that cannot replace embryo research.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On the difference in principle between research on adult and embryonic cells, is it not true that an individual could be cloned using a somatic cell—an adult cell? It may not be as easy, but we could still create new cloned individuals from adult cells, so there is not as great a difference in principle between embryonic and adult cell research as some people believe.

Yvette Cooper: Some people will argue that there is a difference in principle, but in practice scientists feel that

the embryonic cells are more important than adult stem cells. My hon. Friend mentioned the somatic nuclear replacement technique, to which I will return later.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is exactly what alarms many of us? He said that one must follow the process of cell differentiation all the way through. A considerable amount of differentiation goes on after an embryo has developed its primitive streak. Will the Minister, at the very least, withdraw her agreement with my hon. Friend and establish firmly that that is not what she has in mind?

Yvette Cooper: I will certainly clear up any misunderstanding that has arisen. There is a difference between tracing the cell development and what happens to cells as they develop and tracing the embryonic development. Under the 1990 Act, no research can take place beyond 14 days. The Government do not advocate any research beyond that point, as it is not appropriate. The safeguards in the Act are clear. A separate issue is understanding the development of cells—cells not embryos—extracted from embryos. It is important to understand how they develop, but it is important that any research does not involve embryos beyond 14 days. That is clear in the Act and the regulations.

Dr. Michael Clark: The Minister has been generous in giving way. Her speech is a model of clarity and I am thoroughly enjoying it. Does anything in the regulations indicate whether, if work on adult stem cells progresses and could take over from work on embryonic stem cells, the use of the latter would automatically be reduced, or would new regulations or legislation be required?

Yvette Cooper: New regulations would not be necessary because the principle is embodied in the 1990 Act. I will deal with that in a minute.

Ms Jenny Jones: Can my hon. Friend confirm that scientists who have successfully converted adult stem cells and differentiated cells into other types of adult cells have confirmed that it is premature to suggest that adult cells can replace embryonic cells in that research?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Many of those in the vanguard of adult stem cell research do not believe that it can yet replace embryonic research. In previous debates, I quoted Professor Richard Hynes, the president of the American Society for Cell Biology. Also, Angelo Vescovi, who leads the Italian team, which has done pioneering work on adult stem cells and neural cells, says that he "completely disagrees" with the view that his research means that there is no need for embryonic stem cell research.
Professor Julia Polak, who is at the forefront of adult stem cell research in this country, told us:
Like others we have conducted research using human bone marrow cells as a source of adult stem cells. We too have succeeded in differentiating these cells into bone and cartilage lines. But what is clear by the scientific evidence is that adult stem cells are scattered and hence difficult to find. While some research on bone


marrow has shown its capacity to develop into liver cells, research has shown that adult cells are likely to be much more limited in terms of development potential than embryonic derived stem cells which are truly pluripotent. Without research on embryonic derived stem cells it is very unlikely indeed that adult stem cell research will ever realise its true potential.
But let us suppose that the breakthroughs come thick and fast and that, as hon. Members have pointed out, there are new breakthroughs—perhaps in adult stem cell research. Perhaps early embryonic research will tell us all we need to know so that we can move on to adult cell research. Suppose that there are amazing, unpredicted breakthroughs in adult stem cell research.
Let us suppose that happens and that embryo research is not needed. That is no reason to vote against these regulations. If embryo research is no longer needed, under the 1990 Act it will not be licensed. That is the law.
The 1990 Act states that the HFEA must satisfy itself for each and every research proposal that the embryos are necessary for the research, if another way to do the research exists—through adult stem cells—the research cannot be licensed under the law. The checks are already built into the law, and so they should be.
Right now, the best scientific advice in this country and on the international stage is that adult stem cells do not have the potential that embryonic cells have. However, should that change over time, checks are already in place—in the Act—to ensure that adult stem cells rather than embryos are used in future research.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: One point that the Minister has not covered in her excellent and clear speech is how the safeguards will be enforced. Can she absolutely assure the House that there will be independent checks and audits when there is permission to use those embryos?

Yvette Cooper: Clear provisos are set out in the 1990 Act for checks on the embryo research that is carried out at present. The HFEA has responsibility for licensing and regulating all the research that takes place. It has to report yearly on its work. Those regulations are already in place; they will continue under these regulations—it is right that they should do so.

Dr. Howard Stoate: My hon. Friend is extremely generous in giving way. Will she clarify a fundamental point on the difference between embryo and stem cell research? At the six-day stage, when the stem cells have been removed from the embryo, that embryo no longer exists, so the stem cells taken from it have no potential whatever to become a human being; they can differentiate only into different cell lines.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall clarify the matter for the House so that there is no misunderstanding. The stem cells extracted from embryos for research cannot develop into human beings; they are stem cells. They are in isolation and cannot possibly become human beings. Embryos cannot possibly be used in research after 14 days. The stem cells can be extracted—usually at about five to six days—and are then separate from the embryos; those stem cells can then be used in research.
Many Members have asked questions and expressed concerns about cloning. Opponents of the regulations have raised another important concern, and claimed that this is the slippery slope to human reproductive cloning. I could not disagree more strongly.
Let me make very clear the Government's position on this matter. Human reproductive cloning is illegal. It must stay illegal. Under these regulations it will stay illegal. These regulations have nothing to do with human reproductive cloning. I know of no one in the House who advocates human reproductive cloning. The idea of cloning babies is completely unacceptable to the House and to public opinion.
Some people have argued that cell nuclear replacement is the first step on the slippery slope to reproductive cloning. Cell nuclear replacement is a technique for creating stem cells that are genetically compatible with the donor. The nucleus is removed from an egg, and the nucleus from a donor adult cell is put in its place. By triggering the growth of an embryo, it is possible to develop and extract stem cells that are genetically compatible with the person donating the adult cell. The Donaldson report concluded that cell nuclear replacement could hold the key to growing stem cells that the diseased body will not reject—stem cells that are genetically compatible with the patient in need.
To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), the 1990 Act does not distinguish between research on embryos created through IVF and those created through cell nuclear replacement. That technique is legal under the current law, but only under the strict conditions of the current law. In other words, it is legal to carry out that technique for the purposes of research into infertility, contraception and so on, but it is only legal up to 14 days, only under licence from the HFEA, and only if there is no other way to do the research.
Like the 1990 Act, the regulations do not—and cannot—distinguish between one technique and another. They do not make cell nuclear replacement research legal because, strictly speaking, it is already legal. All they do is change the purposes for which cell nuclear replacement research can be carried out.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that matter very clearly, but may I take her back one step? She said that cloning is illegal, but am I not correct in saying that that is dependent on the authority; it is not enshrined in primary legislation? If I am correct, when does she intend to introduce a Bill to enshrine in primary legislation the fact that cloning is illegal?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that cloning is illegal. We have made clear our commitment, and our intention, to embed the ban on human reproductive cloning in primary legislation. We will do so as parliamentary time allows and obviously subject to discussion with business managers.
Some have argued that such research is the slippery slope to cloning human beings. I argue that that is absolutely not the case. It is illegal to develop embryos created through cell nuclear replacement beyond 14 days.


It is a criminal offence to implant embryos created through cell nuclear replacement in the womb. Human reproductive cloning is illegal.

Dr. Gibson: We should be aware that the public think that scientists are a bit arrogant and tend to disobey rules or to go beyond them. Some will try something with an embryo of 15 or 16 days that is beyond the pale. How do we control that? The Minister will understand how science behaves, so how can ensure that scientists obey the rules?

Yvette Cooper: It is the responsibility of Parliament to set the ethical framework in which science must operate. The 1990 Act sets out not only a clear ethical framework, but a structure for ensuring that that framework is enforced through the HFEA. Clearly, we shall expect all such issues to be monitored and enforced through the HFEA.
Claims that the regulations will lead to human reproductive cloning are based in science fiction, not in law. It would be dreadful if the fear of science fiction were to prevent research that promises to save lives.

Mr. Andy King: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the HFEA has behaved—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I want to respond to that aside. My question has not been planted by anyone; it comes from within me, not from some vested interest, unlike some others.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the HFEA has gone beyond its remit and, instead of being the safeguard that we want it to be on such sensitive matters, it is behaving like a lobby group and adding its name to memorandums, with other vested interests, to push through the regulations?

Yvette Cooper: No, I do not agree. The HFEA has a clear role to play, which is set out in the 1990 Act. It also has huge expertise, on which we rely to ensure that the 1990 Act is properly enforced.
So it is clear there are potentially huge benefits from such research. It does not involve a fundamental shift in principle from the current law. There are strict safeguards to prevent both unnecessary research and reproductive cloning.
Of course no one can guarantee when and whether there will be breakthroughs. No one can say how many lives will be saved. No one can say to how many people the power to speak, walk or run will be restored. No one knows how far stem cells will hold the power of healing in the human body. We do not know whether the process will take a year or 10 or 20 years. No one can guarantee where research will take us; if they could, we would not need the research at all.
We cannot say to the child who has been paralysed in an accident that we can find her a cure in her lifetime; we cannot guarantee her the chance to walk and run again. But we can say that we will try. We can look her in the eye and say that we will do everything in our power to promote research that gives her a fighting chance of walking again.
We cannot guarantee a cure for the man who is suffering from Parkinson's disease, who struggles to his constituency surgery and wrestles with his words just to plead with his Member of Parliament to support the regulations. But we can look him in the eye and tell him that we will do everything in our power to give him a fighting chance of receiving treatment that will help him to dress himself again. If such a breakthrough does not come in time for him, we can tell him that we have done all in our power to help the next generation and to prevent them from suffering as he does today.
Normally, such power lies in the hands of scientists. Normally, it lies in the hands of research funding bodies or experts who are in pursuit of a cure. Today, the power lies in the hands of Parliament. It lies in the hands of those who are considering their vote.
I believe that there are strong moral arguments for supporting the regulations. I recognise that some feel, as a matter of conscience, that they cannot support any extension of research involving embryos. However, I also believe that many in the House, such as me, do not feel that they can, as a matter of conscience, turn their backs on research that could relieve the suffering of so many. I commend the regulations to the House.

Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Minister for once again setting out her case so objectively and precisely. It is helpful to the House, although I cannot help thinking that, since we had this debate just last Friday, this is a parliamentary version of "Groundhog Day". I state yet again that the motion will be subject to a free vote among Conservative Members.
The issues fall into the categories of process and substance. I shall be gin by saying a word about process. The decision to be taken is a major one. It will have profound consequences for both the science base and the ethics within which research occurs. Many outside the House will not understand why such a profound decision is before the House in a statutory instrument, which is not amendable, rather than in primary legislation. That may be due to the way in which we do business in the House, but we might need to think again about whether it satisfies those on both sides of the argument who would rather have more detail.
For example, let us consider the definition in the draft regulations of serious disease. On Friday, the Minister admitted that interpretation of that definition would very often be left to the courts. There is a strong feeling in the House that there is already too much interpretation by the courts and that we in Parliament should be giving greater direction on the exact meaning of terms in any legislation that we pass. Many will find the process rather unsatisfactory.
Debates such as today's lead all parliamentarians into difficult territory. We must make decisions about the future of our science base and set the moral and ethical parameters of our society. Too many believe that too many powers have been taken from the House. It is good to see a fine attendance in the House for a debate of great moral importance to the country.
We must beware the relativist's argument that, because different moral and ethical perspectives lead us to draw lines in the sand in different places, no lines can or should be drawn. The fact that different people make different


judgments cannot justify the making of no judgment whatever. It is impossible to remain morally neutral on the issue irrespective of whether it would be politically expedient for us to do so. If we fail to consider where the ethical boundaries lie and we shy away from setting them in a legislative framework, we are, in effect, saying that there are none at all.
There is genuine and deep-rooted political unease in the House about many of the medical techniques that are employed. We have had debates on euthanasia and genetic research, and we are now debating cloning. They have all raised public concern, and we need to respond to that. The questions that the medical revolution asks are too important to be left to scientists and doctors alone. We must tackle them on behalf of the society that we represent. I hope that that can be done this afternoon in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect for the different and strongly held views.
We also need to remember that human knowledge is always developing and that it is far from infallible. There is always the danger of the unpredicted outcome or the unforeseen consequence. What might be regarded as a certain medical truth at one point can be discredited within only a few years. Examples such as thalidomide illustrate that point.

Dr. Gibson: And BSE.

Dr. Fox: As he did last week, the hon. Gentleman will get his own chance to contribute to the debate. As I said, I hope that the debate will be held in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might find that funny, but it is normally the basis on which we do business in the House of Commons.
The benefits of the medical revolution are immense—transplantation, limb grafts and the elimination of infectious diseases. That revolution has changed not only the way in which we live, but the way in which we think about living. With genetic research, we are dealing literally with the building blocks of life, and our perception of what it is to be a human being is literally being put under the microscope.
However, the medical revolution carries with it moral, ethical and philosophical consequences that we need to confront, but I am sure that I am not the only Member who often feels that our ability to deal with the moral issues sometimes lags behind our technical abilities and what science is capable of achieving. We all accept that just because we can do something does not mean that we should do something. Similarly, just because science is capable of doing something does not mean that it should be allowed to do it. We need to establish a clear framework within which to operate and we should be confident enough, as a society, to grasp the agenda back from the scientific community alone.
We must follow certain principles, and the Minister outlined some of them. We must avoid being alarmist; nothing scares people like ignorance and the fear of the unknown. Transparency, accountability and honesty are all essential. Our debate can be mature and considered only if it is also informed. Therefore, information must be freely available and explained in a way that makes its complicated concepts acceptable to the greatest number of people. It must be free from the crass distortions that, for a variety of motives, are all too common.

Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, and I wish to debate the issue in the

spirit of mutual respect. An enormous amount of misinformation circulates, particularly outside the House, about the proposal. It is upsetting to read reports in the newspapers about human clones and monsters being created. Such reports are far from the truth. Does he agree that it is important that, instead of scaremongering, we should debate the real science and the real proposals?

Dr. Fox: I have never believed that scare tactics on either side of an important argument are a substitute for proper, objective debate on the properly defined issues. I am grateful to the Minister for defining the terms of the debate.

Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cell nuclear replacement process will create an embryo that is identically similar to the patient? That is the point of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, we create a new cloned embryo identical to the patient, and it is then destroyed. Much as I respect my hon. Friend, if he were ill, we would be talking about creating a dozen new little Liam Foxes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, we would create embryos in order to destroy them. There is no other way of carrying out the process.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has been very good natured so far, but I do not want shouting across the Chamber.

Dr. Fox: I shall shortly come to the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning. It is an important distinction, which the House needs to understand. I shall also outline my personal view.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), there is a need not only to deal with information but to respect public sensitivities, and that is particularly true for the scientific and medical communities. Legitimate concern should not be dismissed or sneered at, although, I am afraid, that all too often happens. Experts should not hide behind technical jargon and scientific gobbledegook. Public anxiety needs to be dealt with openly and sympathetically because recent high-profile cases have eroded public confidence in the judgment shown by the medical and scientific communities. It is important to restore that confidence; to achieve that, the public must be shown to their satisfaction that rigorous ethical guidelines have been put in place and are being policed.
Perhaps above all in this debate we must ensure that human privacy and dignity are protected. In our desire to eliminate disease and suffering we must, in particular, be careful to respect those who are already disabled or suffering from incurable diseases. They should not be made in any way to feel that their lives are inferior or valueless. When, as reported recently, a leading embryologist says that it will soon be a sin for parents to carry children with genetic diseases, alarm bells should start to ring. For "sin" in that context, we should read "crime" in 1930s Germany, and we soon get the picture. I am sure that every Member would utterly deprecate such sentiments.
There has been a great deal of consensus on one point—that reproductive cloning is utterly morally unacceptable and should remain illegal. The Minister was clear on that point, and I doubt that there would be a


single dissenting voice in the House. However, we must be aware that some people have a different agenda from those who only seek new medical therapies, and we must be very vigilant.
In America last year, doctors succeeded in creating one human egg using cells from two different lovers and a father. The press dubbed that the three-parent family. The director of one of the clinics involved was reported as saying that she started in that line of work because she was
interested in redefining the family.
Those who consider the traditional family to be the basic building block on which a civilised society is based can only react to such sentiments with complete horror.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not within Parliament's purview to limit or control behaviour in another country such as the United States? Does he accept that our equivalents in that country must answer for the fact that they rate freedom of action so highly that they seek to limit such work only by not paying for it from public funds, rather than through effective legislation? Does he accept that we in this country have never taken that route, so extrapolation from the United States is wholly inappropriate?

Dr. Fox: I did not intend to extrapolate directly from the United States. My point is that some people's agenda is different from that outlined by the Minister, so it is all the more important that we have strict regulation that is rigorously enforced. That is the best way to ensure that the Minister's arguments—which I do not personally agree with, but which she outlined clearly—are effective and that legislation is properly policed.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the 1990 Act provides a sufficiently strong framework for existing work, or is he suggesting that we strengthen the Act, irrespective of the regulations before us?

Dr. Fox: I am not suggesting that there has been a failure to police the operation of the 1990 Act, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking. Logically, however, if the Act is to be extended, or if the criteria according to which it operates are to be changed, we shall need to extend that policing.

Dr. Peter Brand: If the hon. Gentleman accepts, rightly, that we need to regulate and police the work, will he dissociate himself from the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on 17 November who, when, speaking from the Front Bench, suggested that we could rely on the fruits of overseas embryo research being imported to this country? Is not that a complete failure to take a moral attitude?

Dr. Fox: That is an argument about the maintenance of the science base. The hon. Gentleman confuses a practical argument about scientific development with the moral case. That does not necessarily help.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Fox: I know that many Members want to speak. That being so, I shall move on to my next point.
The substance of the debate falls into two parts: first, medical technology, its control and its application; and, secondly, the origin of the cell lines involved. There are those who argue that the application of genetic technology is so immense that we should not allow it to develop. Leaving aside the fact that it will develop elsewhere and that it is an unrealistic argument, I do not believe that knowledge has any inherent moral value. Only the application of knowledge can be right or wrong. There is an argument for strong policing and strong legislation, and it would have been better to lay out those factors in primary legislation.
On the argument about the origin of cells, there are clearly three groups in the House. There are those who believe that embryonic cells should not be used for experimentation or treatment. They believe that it is a moral issue purely about respecting the right to life. That is the group into which I would fall, which is why I would vote against the regulations, as I have voted against similar proposals in the past. I am open about that.
Another group argues that the aims justify the means, and that we should therefore allow even more liberal experimentation than that proposed in the regulations. The largest group in the House probably finds the use of embryonic cells undesirable to an extent, but understands the potential medical benefits and wants to know whether there is a legitimate alternative route to them. That is where the House will ultimately make its decision.
Medical science is divided. There is much to commend adult stem cell research, not least the potential avoidance of rejection. It may be true, as medical science seems to indicate, that adult stem cells would not be as flexible as embryonic cells in this research, but they have a good deal more to offer than many have been led to believe by some distracting propaganda.
There is a strong case, therefore, for maximising our research, development and investment, but we must try to keep the debate in context. The Minister, in an impressively emotive passage in her speech, talked about the expectations and the hopes of being able to provide treatment for Parkinson's disease, diabetes, strokes and other illnesses that are all too common. No hon. Member would not like to achieve those benefits—to see cures and to see people made well. However, many people would regard the price of getting there by using embryonic cells as too high.
We must try to limit expectations and not have people believe that we are further ahead with research than we are. We are at an early stage in all programmes, and to pretend that cures are round the corner would be dishonest and, to a large degree, cruel.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Fox: I will not give way again. I must let others speak.
We must accept that research will continue elsewhere. We are talking about what happens in terms of research in the United Kingdom. All too often, globalisation is confused with powerlessness, and we must not be afraid if the ethical and moral implications of what we are discussing make us want to slow down this area of scientific development. It is our job to do what we think is right in a United Kingdom context, and not to be swayed by what is happening elsewhere.
We are faced with a difficult decision, especially for Members who do not take an absolute position on the issue. Much is at stake. I will vote at against—

Dr. Lynne Jones: rose—

Dr. Fox: I can explain my position to the hon. Lady, but I cannot understand it for her.
Much is at stake and I will vote against the regulations for the reasons that I have outlined. I have tried to put myself in the position of those who find themselves with a difficult dilemma. There has been too little time fully to consider the detail of what is proposed. There is too little definition in an unamendable statutory instrument, and too little analysis of the ethical consequences.
Most of all, before we are willing to use embryonic cells, we must be convinced that there is no alternative, and I could not be convinced of that. I recognise the magnitude and the importance of the decision. As hon. Members make the decision tonight, I hope that we will all understand fully the technical, moral and ethical considerations, and in all respects the costs of the decision that we are about to make.

Miss Anne Begg: I was eager to speak in the debate today to explain to the House why so many groups representing people with serious diseases want scientists to be allowed to use stem cells from embryos in their research, so that they may discover treatments and cures for a range of conditions.
Hon. Members will have received communications from groups such the Parkinson's Disease Society, the Huntington's Disease Association, the Cancer Research Campaign, the British Heart Foundation and the Genetic Interest Group, which is an umbrella organisation of more than 100 charities and groups, such as the Gaucher's Association, and which represents people with my condition. All of them are saying the same thing: please allow the research to be undertaken, as it has such enormous potential.
Almost all scientific opinion is in favour of the research and wants it to take place. Almost all medical opinion is in favour of the research and wants it to go ahead. Almost everyone who suffers from a degenerative disease is desperate for the research to go ahead, including many for whom the results of the research will come too late because their condition is too far advanced.
Indeed, people who have one of the degenerative diseases are, perhaps, most vocal in their support for stem cell research. They know at first hand what it is like to live with Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis, and they do not want future generations to suffer what they are going through, which is often described as a living hell. They think that scientists should be allowed to explore whether they can unlock the technology to provide a treatment or even a cure for some of the big diseases of our time. It is not for ourselves but for those who come after us that people like me are speaking out in favour of embryonic stem cell research being allowed.
As I said in the debate on Friday, I realise that I will not persuade hon. Members who have strong moral objections to the use of embryo cells in any research and for any reason, no matter how noble or critical that

research may be. I can make the best case in the world for the research to be allowed, as I hope that I am doing, but those hon. Members will never agree that embryo cells of any kind should be used, and are against the existing legislation. They have an honourable and consistent position.
However, the hon. Members whom I want to persuade to join me in the Aye Lobby are those who support the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and agree that in some cases, and under the right and tight regulation, embryos can be used in research, but perhaps, for one reason or another, are uneasy about the regulations. I address myself to those in the House who fall into that category—those who accept that adult stem cells cannot be used, because the technology has not reached the point where such cells can be substituted.
I see the use of stem cells from in vitro fertilised embryos for research into the treatment and cure of serious diseases as a logical extension of the existing categories that are allowed under the 1990 Act. I am convinced that had the potential for such research been known about in 1990, it would have been included in the existing legislation.
I appreciate that the use of fertilised embryos in the conventional sense is not the sticking point for many people; it is the use of embryos created by cell nuclear transfer—the so-called therapeutic cloning—that causes concern. Because the words "cloning" and "embryo" are so emotive, there has been much misinformation about what is proposed and the uses to which such knowledge could be put by unscrupulous scientists. I assure hon. Members that this is not the start of some slippery slope.
The embryos created by nuclear replacement are not fertilised. They will never grow into a human life because it is illegal for anyone to try to do that. In fact, we do not know whether such embryos have the potential to grow into a human foetus and no one is going to find out, because to implant such an embryo into a womb would also be illegal. Human reproductive cloning is a criminal offence, and quite rightly so. The Minister has gone even further today, in promising to introduce primary legislation to enshrine that principle in law and to make doubly sure that such practices remain illegal.
The embryos created by nuclear transfer will not be experimented on; it is the stem cells from them that will be used in the research. It is, therefore, wrong to say that these cells have the potential for human life. The embryo may have, but the cells do not. They are individual cells or clusters of cells.
Why can the in vitro embryo stem cells not be used? Why bother with all the debate about the stem cells from embryos produced by nuclear replacement? The answer is simple: it is these stem cells, which use the genetic material contained in the nucleus of the adult cell taken from the potential recipient of the treatment, that hold the most potential. If scientists are able to work out how to turn these stem cells into tissue cells, nerve cells or skin cells, they can be used to replace damaged cells without fear of rejection, as they contain the person's own genetic material. There could come a time when the nucleus from one of my cells could be used to begin the process of growing new bone cells to replace my damaged bone. Just think of it—my own cells being used to help my body to heal itself.
If the vote is lost today, I and other hon. Members will have to go back to our constituents who have Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis or Huntington's disease and say, "Sony, embryo cells can be used for research into improvements in contraception but cannot be used to find a treatment for what is wrong with you." We shall have to say, "Sorry, a group of unfertilised stem cells can be created with your permission, using your own genetic material, but these cells cannot be used to find a treatment for what is wrong with you." We shall have to tell them, "Sorry, a group of cells in a laboratory dish, which will die because they have no means of sustaining themselves, has the same status as you. These cells are so important that they cannot be used to help alleviate your suffering." That will be the position in the United Kingdom if the House votes to reject the regulations. I would find it impossible to explain the logic of that position to my constituents who have lobbied me to support the extension of the use of stem cells.
Many claims have been made for medical science over the years. How often have we heard announcements of miracle cures, which turned out to be no such thing? I am very sceptical about many of those claims, especially those made by drug companies. However, there have also been occasions when what appeared to be a small advance for medical science became the impetus for enormous improvements in the human condition: the discovery of the cowpox vaccine, which led to immunisation, the discovery of penicillin, and the first organ transplant.
Today, we stand at such a threshold. Stem cell research has the potential to act as the key that will open the door to many advances in our knowledge and ability to treat some of the most heart-rending conditions, which are presently untreatable. I ask the House please not to step back from that threshold. The only slippery slope is the one that leads to making many people's lives so much better. I urge the House to vote to allow this vital research to proceed.

Mr. Nick Harvey: This is the third and, for the foreseeable future, final opportunity for the House to consider these matters. Hon. Members have now had several hours of parliamentary time in which to do so.
I have become familiar with the arguments only over the past few months and have—like hon. Members in all parts of the House—received many representations from people on both sides of the argument. They include those who want this research to be given the go-ahead, namely, patient groups who see the potential to alleviate suffering, and those with great misgivings—often, although not exclusively, coming from a religious standpoint—who point out the ethical difficulties and complications involved. I take seriously both sets of representations. I consider that the burden of proof is on those who want to go ahead and change the regulations, so I took seriously the objections of my constituents and others. In each case, I attempted to see whether or not there was a satisfactory answer—or at least an answer that would satisfy me—to the points that were made.
Members will all see the great potential of this area of research. Members on both sides of the House will have some experience, within their families or social circle,

of people who are suffering from long-term degenerative diseases. They will have seen them suffering and witnessed the gradual removal of their powers. They will also have seen the slow death which, frankly, those conditions involve. I do not think that anyone would want to thwart any area of research that could help victims of Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis and other conditions which cause untold misery both to those who suffer from them and their families and friends, who have to provide care and support.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was right to say that we must be wary of giving any impression that immediate remedies or solutions for those conditions are just around the corner. Were we to do so, we would raise an awful lot of hope that would not be fulfilled.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no certainty about the outcome of that kind of research. However, does he agree that it is the only hope for people suffering from those degenerative diseases?

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Lady makes a good point. In many cases, that is the only hope, although in some cases it may not be. For those who have recently been diagnosed with conditions that take a long time to develop fully, there will be huge anxiety—as well as hope—that some of the science will perhaps develop quickly enough to help them. As the Minister rightly said, we do not know where any of the research will get to and at what pace. However, if we were to prevent it from going ahead, we would have to have good reasons for doing so.
I accept that some of the representations that I have received and some of the speeches in the House derive from the viewpoint of not accepting the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. I fully respect the fact that some people do not accept the basis on which that legislation was made. However, if one has accepted that basis and the fact that it is acceptable to use embryo research—and, indeed, embryos—in fertility treatment, logically one must accept the extension to the potential treatment of all those serious diseases. I am therefore coming to the conclusion that we must allow that research to proceed.
I accept the 1990 Act, which is well founded and well considered, and believe that it is right to allow the extension of the areas of research for which it provided. That Act sets down the mechanism by which we can do that. I have had concerns about the argument about the slippery slope, which I raised in the debate on Friday. The Minister gave a clear response then, and did so again today, when she said that the Government's intention, as far as time allows, is explicitly to legislate to clarify and to embed—she has been using that verb—a ban in law. I and others depend on that reassurance in arriving at the conclusion that the regulations should be supported.
People have expressed other concerns, especially about the use of adult stem cells. I imagine that virtually everyone would, instinctively, be more comfortable with the use of adult cells, rather than cells from embryos, when that is an option. As the Minister pointed out in response to an earlier intervention, the existing legislation already provides for that situation. I cannot make scientific judgments, but I find persuasive the range of scientific opinion suggesting that the use of adult cells


will not be perfected as a technique unless and until research is conducted using cells from embryos. I have no way of judging that.

Dr. Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that adult cells might have progressed too far as, with age, mutations can develop that might not be adaptable for some cures? Does he agree that more research might be needed on adult cells than on embryonic cells?

Mr. Harvey: I have read that argument, which seems convincing and has been advanced to me before. I hesitate to pontificate on matters scientific as I cannot boast even a science O-level, but I am reassured that it is not down to the likes of me to make the judgments. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, with all its expertise, will grant licences only where it is satisfied that there are no alternative.

Dr. Gibson: Would the hon. Gentleman leave it to the European Commission to make those decisions? It seems that it has already made decisions on the matter and that it will conduct research with funding from the framework programme.

Mr. Harvey: I would prefer to leave those decisions to the HFEA, but I have no doubt that even the European Commission has much greater expertise than I can possibly boast—at least, I dearly hope that it does.
I have heard logical responses to most of the concerns expressed to me, both from people in the sciences and from the Under-Secretary in Friday's debate. On the basis of arriving at a balance between the benefits that could accrue—I accept that we do not know how quickly or on how wide a front—and many people's misgivings about the use of embryos and cells derived from them, I am satisfied that we should proceed. I worry about the vocabulary that is sometimes used about the research and about the assumptions that underlie some of the letters sent to me. The latter are so mistaken that we must accept that, for a time, some people will not understand what we have agreed or why we have agreed to it. It is incumbent on everybody to try to make the information clear.
Today's debate was clear and hon. Members on both sides of the argument have acknowledged the points made by those with different opinions. We have a duty to try to allay fears and anxieties outside the House and to make clear what has been agreed. It is with some trepidation that I make my comments. I know that some of my hon. Friends have arrived at other conclusions, but we, like other parties, will have a free vote. However, having weighed up both sides of the argument and considered the warnings that have been sounded, I am persuaded that we must agree to the regulations. We do so in the light of the Under-Secretary's reassurances, which, I have no doubt, will be the backdrop against which the science will progress in future.

Dr. Howard Stoate: This is proving to be an excellent debate. I am pleased that all sides of the argument are being put responsibly and in a considered manner. I am especially pleased that no hon. Members sought to use the motion on the business of the House to try to stifle an excellent debate. That allowed us the maximum possible time in which to set out the arguments.
I am one of only a small number of medically qualified hon. Members so I am especially pleased to speak in this debate. As a doctor, I see the whole spectrum of human misery, from the infertile couple to the aged person suffering from Alzheimer's. I see at first hand the misery and suffering that is caused by many of the long-term conditions to which hon. Members have referred. However, I also have the opportunity to see the enormous sense of joy, pride and achievement that is felt when patients can benefit from a breakthrough in medical science that completely transforms their lives in circumstances that might otherwise have seemed irredeemable. That is why the research is so important. As other hon. Members have pointed out, although it may be a long shot for some patients, it is often the only chance that they have. That is why allowing the research to proceed and enabling scientists to consider its viability must be the way forward.
I do not want to take up too much of the House's time because I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to speak and the Minister made an excellent speech which covered many of the issues that I wished to raise, but four issues need to be aired. They are: do we need the research? Can the research be done only with foetal stem cells? Should the research be allowed; and, if so, in what way can we ensure that it is properly regulated so that it is carried out correctly?
Hon. Members have mentioned many chronic long-term conditions, but I do not know how many of them realise the scale of the problem. I have worked with the Long-term Medical Conditions Alliance, and it seems that one in three adults in this country suffer from a long-term chronic illness of one sort or another. The numbers are staggering. The general household survey of 1996–97 showed that the previous figure of one in four of the population was probably an underestimate; there are more than that. The Office for National Statistics stated:
Two in five of both men and women in Great Britain reported having a long-standing illness or disability in 1996–97.
Therefore, the number of people who suffer from long-term medical conditions of one sort or another is truly staggering. A vast number of people suffer from conditions that could potentially, with the right research and the right breaks, enjoy enormous benefits.
We have already discussed alternatives. I do not wish to dwell on the fact that we need to research adult stem cells. Of course hon. Members would feel happier and more secure if it were possible to achieve the same level of research with adult stem cells. Currently, the scientists tell us, it is not possible. As hon. Members have already said, a period of foetal stem cell research may be what is needed to achieve the necessary breakthroughs in adult stem cell research, which could go on to achieve the benefits that we are hoping for.
Other sources of stem cells exist. Cells from umbilical cords of new-born babies are a source of stem cells, but, as far as we know, they are not of the same quality or of the same potential and so cannot be used as a substitute. Therefore, it seems that it is necessary to carry out that research. There are enough people who suffer from long-term medical conditions and it seems that embryonic stem cells are probably the way forward, so those two conditions are satisfied, but the next and overriding question is whether it is right.
That puts me in a great dilemma as a doctor. Doctors are under a dual duty. On the one hand, we have Paré's dictum, which states that we should cure sometimes,


relieve often and comfort always. There is always the imperative on doctors to do what they can with whatever technology exists to try to alleviate the patient's suffering and, if possible, to cure them. On the other hand, we have the dictum of non-maleficence, the primum non nocere dictum—above all, do no harm. Therefore, we must ensure that we do the minimum harm not just to the patient but to society, and preferably no harm at all. That gives rise to a difficult moral dilemma because it raises issues as to whether it is morally right to carry out research on foetal cells to benefit other people.
That debate will flow backwards and forwards. Many hon. Members have made excellent points already, but I dwell on the difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning because that is fundamental. People have said to me that they do not want me to support the regulations because they mean experimenting on human beings—on embryonic cells. The question is whether the research actually involves experimenting on human beings. Obviously, hon. Members will have to arrive at an answer for themselves, but I do not believe that the research that I am particularly interested in—the nuclear replacement technology—cuts across that issue too closely.
The reason for that is that the technique involves taking an unfertilised human egg. That egg in itself has no potential for being a human being. Women produce, on average, 12 eggs a year in their reproductive life, which is perhaps 25 or 30 years long. The vast majority of those eggs never achieve the status of being a human being. It would be impossible for them to do so. In the same way, men produce many millions of sperm every day, which again do not go on to produce human beings, so the human egg, in itself, is not a person.
If we take out the nucleus from that cell so that it has no nucleus at all, but introduce a nucleus from an adult cell from someone suffering from Parkinson's disease for example, that also, in my opinion, does not create a human being. It creates a nucleus from an adult in an empty egg. That is a fundamental point. That is not a human being, either.
If we develop those cells for six days into a blastocyst of perhaps 100 cells, that also is not a human being. If we take out the stem cells from that blastocyst and develop them into a stem cell line, those stem cells are not a human being, either. Those stem cells can be differentiated by a number of chemical techniques into any tissue in the body and can be reimplanted in the patient to replace cells that have been damaged or lost. Therefore, we have a great moral duty to ensure that we are as transparent, open and honest as possible. It is important to have these moral debates in the public eye so that our constituents and those who are interested can watch what we are doing.
I have studied medical ethics in some detail and have been the chair of an ethics committee. Over many years, I was involved in these issues and debates and often had to make decisions about whether research was ethical and viable. When we talk about the cell nuclear replacement technique, we are not talking about research on human beings as such, and I do not believe that we are even talking about research on potential human beings. The caveats that my hon. Friend the Minister has already laid out mean that a cell whose nucleus has been replaced

would not have the potential to be a human being because it would be illegal to experiment beyond 14 days or to implant it into a womb where it could potentially give rise to life.

Dr. Gibson: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about what we can do now. Can he tell me why we should not produce 15 David Beckhams that I could use in the parliamentary football team and 659 Betty Boothroyds to service this place and the public? What is philosophically wrong with that?

Dr. Stoate: The only answer to that is, "Perish the thought", but I do not want to make light of this because it is extremely serious. We must try to stick to the moral and ethical arguments.

Mr. Frank Roy: On the serious question of what is or is not life, does my hon. Friend agree that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 treats embryos as entities, whereas the Donaldson report would break up the embryos for use as, for want of a better term, spare parts? Does my hon. Friend believe that, under the Donaldson report, the special status of the embryo is under threat?

Dr. Stoate: I respect my hon. Friend's opinion. He has a deeply held view to which he is fully entitled, and I am listening carefully to views of that sort. We need to be careful about the moral issues. However, for the reasons that I have given, the nuclear cell replacement technique does not create a human being and so we do not have the same difficulties.

Mr. Simon Thomas: For the benefit of those of us who are following his argument and trying to find our way in the middle ground, will the hon. Gentleman explain that the nuclear cell replacement technique, which he says does not give rise to a human being, is the same putative technique that could be used in cloning if it was allowed, although I accept that it is not? The fact that it is the same technique is what has given rise to so many difficulties for the public and it is why we must approach the issue with caution and concern.

Dr. Stoate: That is an extremely valid point. It is important to air all these issues. It is right that Dolly the sheep was produced using this technique and it is theoretically possible for such work to be done. That is why it is important to ensure that the law, the framework and the policing mechanisms are watertight so that nobody will ever find out whether it is possible for the technique to produce a human being because nobody will be allowed to try. That is a matter of policing.
Once the House has deliberated and reached a decision, it is up to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to ensure that the regulations are implemented in a watertight way. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has already laid out the framework under which a licence will be granted, with plenty of opportunity for policing. Each individual research project has to be justified and properly regulated and inspected.

Dr. Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that cell nuclear transfer is the only hope for people suffering from any of the up to 50 mitochondrial diseases that have developed in society?

Dr. Stoate: Exactly. My hon. Friend is a scientist and has made an excellent point. There are unusual


mitochondrial diseases of which we understand very little. This technique seems to be the only logical way forward if we are to make breakthroughs. For the reasons I have given, the many people suffering from chronic diseases with limited hope, will potentially benefit from this.
The human body has an enormous capacity to regenerate and to replenish damaged cells. With degenerative disease, however, the disease process overwhelms the body's capacity to regenerate and to replace cells, leading to destruction. Therefore, the only hope for patients affected by such disease is a method of replacing those damaged cells. That is why we have to take this very difficult decision in a positive way, to ensure that research is made possible. Such research would benefit not necessarily the current generation of sufferers but the future generation of sufferers.
For those reasons, I shall support the change. Although I have looked extremely hard at the issues and taken full account of the moral and ethical dimensions of the issue that have been expressed by hon. Members and members of the public, I as a scientist and a doctor believe that the potential benefit to humanity of such research far outweighs the many difficulties facing us in ensuring that the moral argument is not forgotten.

Mr. Robert Key: I salute the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who has shown unfailing courtesy, the patience of Job, accuracy and sensitivity in her speeches, and great clarity of purpose. That is more than can be said for the Government's business managers, who have shown all the forensic skill and delicate footwork that we have come to expect from a Whips Office struggling to get the business through with a majority of only a few hundred.
The Minister has, no doubt without being aware of it, been fighting her own Whips on the issue. I cannot recall another occasion in my time in the House when at least one senior Government Whip, who is personally opposed to the measure, has been drumming up opposition and was heard to say in the presence of Opposition Members,
We can defeat this business.
That is a novel line for a Government Whip.
As Labour Members are at least as divided as Conservative Members and other Members on the issue, the prospect of inflicting the first defeat of this Parliament on the Government will, I suspect, be too great an opportunity to miss for many of my hon. Friends. I dare say, however, that, as usual, hon. Members who are in the Chamber taking a serious part in the debate are not those who fall into that category at all. Nevertheless, it is true that one of my hon. Friends recently said that he voted for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, but would not support the regulations until there had been more time for debate.
Another hon. Friend said that she would not support the legislation because
I do so hate all this stuff.
Has the business been rushed through? No, I do not believe that it has. I believe, however, that it was a misjudgment to have two Friday debates. I also believe that there is no substitute for a mid-week, prime-time debate on this type of issue. I sympathise with the

Minister on that. It is also questionable, given opposition among Labour Members, that the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip have relied on the statutory instrument procedure.
The business has not been rushed through. We have had the chief medical officer's report for five months. We should also not complain that the Government amended the regulations very swiftly in response to consultation. There have been masses of discussion about the subject in the national press and other media. I particularly single out for praise BBC News Online, which, since 16 August, has been carrying a debate and argument from all sides of the issue.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Would my hon. Friend like also to draw attention to the very valuable briefs that hon. Members have received particularly from medical charities on the issue? We have received very extensive and full information from many concerned people.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is quite right. I would simply extend his comments to say that I am grateful for the many briefs that I have received from many quarters and from all types of people with whom I do not necessarily agree. It has been very helpful to have the views of particular denominations of the Christian faith, for example. It has been very helpful to me, as a fully paid-up member of the Church of England, to understand how other Christians think about the issue.

Mr. Swayne: Do Church of England members believe in God?

Mr. Key: Perhaps we can debate that on another occasion.
There has also been a rewriting of history in relation to the issue. I admired very much the speech made last Friday by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly). It is wrong to think that there was no discussion or debate on human cloning 10 years ago, in the run-up to the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. There was a great deal of debate, as was noted a few moments ago. It was precisely because of the debate at the time, especially in the scientific community, that the Government of the day thought it wise to bring in the 1990 Act in the first place.
Others have argued that we did not discuss the moral or ethical dimensions properly. We did, and at very great length. The hon. Member for Bolton, West said on 15 December:
it is clear from reading these debates that no one envisaged that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 would also allow human cloning to take place—[Official Report, 15 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 899.]
In fact, we did discuss that, as it was perfectly clear that things were moving in the direction of cloning, even though the matter was not covered in the 1990 Act.
I served on the Standing Committee considering the 1990 Act as it passed through the House, and I can confirm that many of the moral and ethical dimensions were considered.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend recall, from the debates on the 1980 Act, that my


right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) ruled out human cloning? He said that the legislation was not about human cloning and would not include it. At the time, human cloning was the equivalent of science fiction.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is wrong to suggest that human cloning was science fiction at that time. It was not. I was the lay member of the Medical Research Council at the time, and human cloning was far from being science fiction. Indeed, the scientific community in 1990—I am sure that my hon. Friend made a slip when she referred to the 1980 Act—was asking Parliament to help it get to grips with the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) merely reinforces what I was saying, because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made the positive decision not to include cloning in the 1990 Act, because it was judged that no one—not scientists, Parliament or the country—was yet ready. That is why we have had to return to the matter now, and why the 1990 Act was designed in such a way that it contained a mechanism that would allow the House to go straight back to the matter. That is what we are doing now.
I return to the point about the debate held 10 years ago. I found the minutes of the meeting of the public affairs unit of the centre of medical law and ethics at King's College, London. The meeting was chaired by Professor I.M. Kennedy, who was assisted by Dr. Sophie Botros, a lecturer in medical ethics. For month after month, Members of both this House and of the other place met to discuss the issues surrounding the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The agenda for the meeting of 31 January 1990 contained three items:

1. The 14 day limit on embryo research: what is its moral justification, what are its legal implications? How does it relate to the person/chattel distinction in law?
2. How do we define infertility and genetic abnormality? What are the moral implications?
3. Should children be allowed to know of their genetic origins (the moral and legal perspective)?

We had debates and briefings on research on 
specially created" or only "spare" pre-embryos,
and on the
moral Status of the Embryo.
In the run-up to the 1990 legislation, those hon. Members who so chose could be fully appraised of the issues.
This morning, I received an e-mail. It contained no address, so I do not yet know whether it came from a constituent, but it sums up the problems that many constituents raise. It states:
I am very concerned about the unrelenting pressure that a few scientists and pharmaceutical companies are putting on legislators, like yourself, to approve Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning (also called cell nuclear replacement). They are using carefully selected statements rather than the whole truth to convince Parliament that their vested interests are for the common good. This is a terrible abuse of democracy.
My correspondent went on to say that the technology is unnecessary, but that is not the case. More than 100 charities and patient groups are fighting desperately

for the Bill tonight it. Thousands of people in each constituency will be affected by the legislation in their lifetimes.
Of course it is wrong to suggest that the technology is unnecessary. I have considered the issue of adult stem cells very carefully and come to the conclusion that because they do not differentiate as much as embryonic cells, that is a severe medical and scientific disadvantage. We do not quite know how to explain it, but if I understand it rightly—and I defer to the scientists present—it is a bit like taking photocopies. After a time they start running out of toner and getting a bit dim. That is one of the problems of the system, to use a commonplace analogy.
I hope that we will take a civilised view, like any civilised country, and build up a bank of 20 or 30 stem cell lines which could be used as a renewable resource, rather like a blood bank. It is accepted that we have blood banks, which differentiate the different blood groups. The Medical Research Council has offered up to 50 such stem cell lines, because that is what is needed to overcome different immuno-responses.
A number of people are concerned about the policing aspect. I have thought very carefully about that. I know what happens in scientific communities; for 17 years, I have had the honour to represent Porton Down. If anyone thought that they were going to get away with anything, it would not last long, even under the Official Secrets Act, at Porton Down. Conspiracies never work, in my experience. Speaking as a former Minister, I can tell the House that the cock-up theory of Government always wins. However, in the scientific community, where there is peer pressure and peer review, conspiracies are attempted and fail They never work—someone always blows the whistle.
I shall not repeat my views on therapeutic cloning. I spoke in the debate in November. I made my views very clear and have published them on my website ever since, for all to see. I have, of course, consulted my bishop and the Bishop of Oxford, and I agree with them. We take the developmental view that human life is a continuum. I cannot say that human life starts at any particular moment, but I distinguish between human tissue and a human person.
Incidentally, the Bishop of Salisbury is concerned that the Government should reassure us that the benefits of stem cell therapeutic cloning will eventually be available to all on the national health service, not just to those who can pay. I hope that the Minister can confirm that. I go further than the bishop in seeking an assurance from the Minister that the benefits of any new therapy resulting from cloning will be available to all, and that there will be no postcode rationing and no need to refer it to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
I am also convinced that not everything that can be done by science should be done by science, and that is where Parliament comes in. I believe, too, that the moral arguments for and against permitting research using human embryos turn on the status accorded to the pre-14-day embryo. I have no doubt that they are human, but are they human tissue or human persons?
As I said in the debate on 17 November, I share the view of the former Archbishop of York, John Habgood, who has argued that the value that we attach to the lives of human beings—a value that is the root of all morality—


increases as human life develops, and that we are therefore entitled, morally, to hold the life of a recently fertilised egg as less to be protected than that of a foetus at a later stage or a baby when it is born. The archbishop argued that not only is that morally acceptable, it is in fact what we do. Can those who think that there should be no distinction or degrees of human sanctity explain why we have saints?
Nature is profligate. We do not mourn for wasted sperm and eggs, alive though they are, nor for the three quarters of fertilised eggs that are lost before implant, half of which are genetically impaired. As the Bishop of Oxford has said:
If every fertilised egg was indeed a soul, that is, an immortal spiritual reality created independently of the biological process, then, according to these figures, three quarters of heaven would be populated by souls that lived for less than a week. This does not seem congruous with what we know of a God who has chosen to create persons through a process of development.
What of the slippery slope argument? First, it depends on whether we believe that the slope is going up or down. For science, the slope is mostly uphill—two steps forward and one step back. Even if one believes that the slope is downhill, if the first step is taken it is not inevitable that the next step should follow. Is it morally right to prohibit that first step? In logic, there is certainly no need—no necessity demands that second or third steps should follow the first—but that is Parliament's job and, in general, it has been well done.
Considering not the religious but the ethical or moral view, I can do no better than quote Baroness Warnock, who has written:
We are not nothing but our genes. We must recognise that we are conscious beings able to form our own purposes, with powers both to understand and to control the laws of biology, as well as of physics. It may be our moral duty to scrutinise, criticise and regulate the projects of biological scientists in the light of our concept of a common good. It cannot be our moral duty to repress and prohibit altogether the exercise of their inventive and creative genius.
I believe that the human intellectual abilities that allow us to understand and manipulate our world are God-given powers. To scientific knowledge and the powers that it confers, we must add wisdom to accept the good and refuse the bad. The benefits that may be achieved in healing the sick in this case outweigh the down side of using cells that may have the potential for a full human life. If we can hold out hope for some alleviation of the miseries of diseases such as Alzheimer's then, being human, we have a duty to do so. If that involves cell transplants or genetic manipulation, let us pursue such goals. Let us recognise that in changing some genes in some human beings we are not changing human nature.
As the Bishop of Oxford said on "Thought for the Day" last Friday, we are not playing at being God—we are being human. A human being does what human beings should do, which is to show a sense of respect for the miracle of human life and use our miraculous capacity to make human life better.

Mr. Mike Gapes: It is a real pleasure to follow that speech from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He has spoken so much sense that many of us will keep our remarks much shorter than they would otherwise have been.
As someone who has not had an opportunity to speak on the issue because I was away with a Select Committee on Friday when the debate was held, I want to offer the perspective of someone who has seen members of his family suffer from Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and cancer, but who has been lobbied vigorously in the past few weeks by a variety of organisations.
I am not surprised that I am being targeted by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children yet again. It has done so several times at different elections and it will no doubt do so again. However, I take offence when I receive a letter that suggests why we are debating the issue today, stating that it is
a matter of grievous concern that the Government should have selected dates for the debate and the vote on an issue of such profound ethical importance when many MPs may have left for the Christmas recess.
That was from Phyllis Bowman of the Right to Life campaign. For her information, I and many other hon. Members will be working hard to represent our constituents throughout the year. She may have long Christmas recesses, but some of us have casework and letters to respond to, including those that she has incited for many weeks.
I have received correspondence, as no doubt have many hon. Members, from constituents who ask me please to vote against human cloning. I am delighted to be able to say that I shall do so on many occasions. If the vote today—on the basis of what the Minister said earlier—is also a vote against human cloning, I will vote against cloning today. However, I will also support stem cell research. The two are very different. Unfortunately, some people who are campaigning against the proposal are deliberately confusing and muddying the waters, which leads people to believe that we are going to create a human Dolly the sheep through our vote today. Many people have already explained why that is completely untrue—so I shall not repeat what has been said. However, it would be helpful if some pressure groups and organisations considered the facts of an issue, rather than trying to whip up the fears and prejudices that are so easy to foster because people are afraid of science.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) tried to clarify three positions on the issue, although many of us think that there are many positions and that the world is more complicated than he portrayed it. He said that he would vote against the proposals. In that case, what does he think that we should do with the 273,000 embryos created through in vitro fertilisation, which are destroyed and not used for any purpose? Is he saying that we should not use IVF?
Constituents tell me that they are desperate to have a child, after years of effort; they want the local health authority to agree to further national health service expenditure on IVF. A consequence of IVF is a large number of "surplus" embryos. At present, they are not used in any way to benefit anybody, yet—so we understand—there is a potential for medical research that might lead to benefits for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease, cancer or diabetes.

Dr. Gibson: The number of such embryos is about 30,000 a year. That gives us a large choice, because we need only about 500 for the work we are discussing.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that information from my hon. Friend, who knows more about the matter than me.
These issues are difficult for Members of Parliament, but we do not live in a theocracy; we live in a multicultural, multi-religious and secular society. At times, we have to use our own judgment—regardless of the correspondence we receive or the pressure put on us by particular lobbies or groups. The political consequences of that may not always be easy, but it is the only course that Members of Parliament can follow on matters of conscience such as this. For those reasons I shall proudly support the motion, as I have also said on my website—to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury. The proposals are in the interests of millions of people in this country and potentially throughout the world. The legislation will lead to a better life and future for families.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: An editorial in The Daily Telegraph today puts in context precisely why so many people in the House and outside it believe that these important matters should have been introduced through primary legislation. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote briefly from the editorial:
When, in 1990, the law was changed to permit embryo research, cloning was still science fiction; there was no debate about its ethics. It was never Parliament's intention to allow cloning, even if it had been conceivable. The new regulations are being presented as if they merely clarified the existing law, whereas in reality they mark a radical departure from it. This is a serious abuse of parliamentary procedure.
I could not have put it better myself.
I have no doubt whatever that a vast majority of those who will vote in favour of the instrument will do so in the genuine belief that it holds the greatest promise for scientists to find cures for many genetic diseases and other disorders that beset our society. However, I passionately believe that they are wrong and that they are being misled. We must consider the evidence. The evidence available to the House suggests that it verges on the nonsensical for us to believe the many claims that embryos are the most likely source of stem cells for treatments for such diseases. Many scientific papers have been published showing that adult stem cells are already proving of great value in treatments for several disorders—for example, cancer, heart abnormalities and degenerative diseases, including Parkinson's.

Dr. Gibson: Can the hon. Lady tell us how those cells have been helpful in cancer research? Cord cells, which come from blood systems, work on leukaemia, but they are no good for any other cancers. Which is she referring to?

Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman refers to an important area of research into cancers. I shall write to him if he wants other examples, but he has cited an important field, and I assume that he agrees that leukaemia is classified as a cancer. I have no doubt that he would be pleased that progress is being made using umbilical cord tissue. That is an ethical way forward, and it is to be welcomed.

Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Winterton: I should like to make a little progress, then I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Some scientists claim that the use of adult stem cells will not involve the complications that could arise with embryonic stem cells. As long ago as February this year, a paper in Science magazine made it clear that adult stem cells could be easier to manage and, if transplanted to their normal environment—for example, brain cells into brain tissue—would produce only the cell types necessary for that tissue. Perhaps that is not so flexible as embryo stem cell methods, but it is probably more effective.

Dr. Harris: We would all welcome the potential that adult stem cell research shows, but can the hon. Lady cite the names of any of the scientists involved in such research who believe that the other avenues that might aid their work should be closed? I have found no statement to that effect from those scientists. On the contrary, they know that they rely on insights from embryological research to carry out their work. Indeed, the greater the potential of adult cells, the more necessary they think insights from embryological research to be.

Mrs. Winterton: It is perfectly obvious that scientists who have an interest—vested and otherwise—in carrying out such research will never want that avenue to be closed, but many distinguished scientists in this country, America and Europe would disagree with the view that the hon. Gentleman espouses. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is not sure about that, but I can assure him that many papers have been published in distinguished scientific journals that bear out that point.
We have already lived through a similar debate. In fact, I have a strong sense of déà vu; we have previously examined claims similar to those being fired at us today in connection with the justification of cloning. The previous occasion was in 1990, when the House debated the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Many promises were made, but nothing of any substance has ever materialised. On this occasion, however, a different tack will be adopted; from now on, my colleagues and I will make a point of regularly checking the claims and promises with which we are being bombarded today.

Dr. Starkey: The hon. Lady will know that the original legislation allows research mostly to improve assisted reproduction. Is she suggesting that there has been no improvement in the success rate of assisted reproduction in the intervening period? Is she denying the value of the research that has ensured that assisted reproduction is more successful than it used to be?

Mrs. Wintertont: Assisted reproduction is little more successful than it used to be. [Interruption.] It may be more successful not because of the research that has been done, but because more cases are being funded by health authorities and more is being done. It is a cruel hoax to think that it is the answer for people facing fertility problems. It seems such a shame that the main cause of infertility—life style—should not have more research into it. [Interruption.] This is perfectly true.

Dr. Gibson: Whose life style? Single parents'?

Mrs. Winterton: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) must contain himself. We do not want that element entering the debate.

Mrs. Winterton: I should also like to say to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that the numbers of cases of infertility have not fallen. Perhaps that also shows that the research has not been as successful as she would like to imply. Bearing in mind the fact that many hon. Members want to speak—

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Winterton: No, I will not give way because I am in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps the hon. Lady might like to resume her seat—thank you. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise; I should not be playing your role. I was in the middle of saying that although many Members are trying to intervene, I should like to make some progress, which would allow others to make their contributions.
I feel as though I am in the middle of a horrible Grimm—in more ways than one—fairy story. It is both untrue and unspeakably cruel to tell families who suffer from genetic disease and other problems that a vote against cloning is a vote against providing them with any hope for the future. Our hearts must go out to those who plead, "Do not deny us a chance to be cured." Those at the Department of Health know full well that that is not so. Professor Donaldson himself has made it clear, when he told us:
it is the view of the Expert Group that the long-term promise of stem cells from adult tissue could equal or surpass that of embryonic stem cells.
There is no evidence, other than wishful thinking, that research on human clones can kick-start that process.
Whence have we obtained evidence that stem cells hold such great promise? The evidence comes from successful experimentation in the use of adult stem cells, and from nothing else. We are confident only because of the successful work that has already been done with adult stem cells. Here I must add that, so far, we have no evidence—none whatever has been forthcoming—of whether embryo stem cells will achieve what is required and what has been predicted. We must therefore ask ourselves why we find the public and the press bombarded with cruel stories that those of us who oppose cloning are denying the sick their greatest hope for cures.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Winterton: I will not give way; I am continuing with my speech.
I have been involved in these matters for many years and therefore have little doubt that money is involved: the crude commercial potential that the use of the human embryo will open up to our £50 billion science industry.
Every human embryo is a miracle. As we have said before in these debates, he or she initiates, controls, sustains and directs his or her own development. Although the embryo is no bigger than a pin point, every kind of cell and tissue that is necessary for skin, muscles, bones, nerves and organs is there from the start.
It is because of those properties that each embryo holds such promise for the biotechnological and other sections of our science industry. The industry could make enormous profits if it were able to extract cells for use in medicine, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, but I find horrifying the manner in which we are held to ransom by its misleading claims. They are nothing less than disingenuous and a cruel hoax on those who are most vulnerable—those suffering from degenerative and other diseases, who understandably seek an instant cure for their condition.
If we lose the vote, I have no intention of going away. Month in and month out I will be joined by colleagues, and others in another place, to table and publicise questions on work with adult stem cells and on research on the human embryo and his brother or sister the clone. We have a remarkable number of friends in the scientific and medical community, and I know that they will join us in ensuring that we see every published paper. We will make a point of drawing them to the attention of the House and the public as a whole.
I draw attention to the claims made, primarily by members of the Government, that they have heard from families and the victims of disease—the people who have to carry the burden. I, too, have heard from such people and those who have written to me have made it abundantly clear that they are appalled by the idea of cloning or of using embryonic stem cells in their treatment. I have certainly heard from groups such as the Parkinson's Disease Society, but the people suffering from Parkinson's disease who have written to me complain that the society has never written to its members or groups to consult them and to check on their feelings on the issue.
I well remember disabled people coming to the House in 1990 to lobby in favour of the use of embryos for experiments. Without exception, they had all been assured that embryo research would provide them with cures and, without exception, the same cruel hoax was played on them. They were used in a callous and unscrupulous way as a means to an end.
I repeat what I said earlier and in other debates. To treat people who are suffering as so much fodder in a campaign that denies them the facts is, to my mind, cruel. Neither my colleagues nor I will stop trying to make those who are responsible for the present propaganda ultimately having to answer for their claims.
The course that the Government are pursuing with so much determination, despite the opposition of so many in the House and outside, is an affront to the dignity of human life and flies in the face of the traditional Judaeo-Christian moral ethos of our nation.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not want to detain the House long, because I had the opportunity to speak on Friday. I reiterate that I approach this issue as someone whose mother suffered for 34 years from Parkinson's disease. I know at first hand what a terrible disease it is.
Although current therapies and treatments can relieve the symptoms of the disease to a great extent, they do not cure it. When my mother stopped taking the drugs, the symptoms of the disease returned even worse than before. Although she appeared to be getting better, the disease


was progressing. The drugs simply relieved the symptoms, and that is true of many degenerative diseases. We have drugs that will cope with the symptoms, but we do not have drugs that attack the disease itself. Research holds out the hope of providing them.
Over the past few days, I have talked to many hon. Members because of my anxiety to see the regulations accepted. Not only my mother but two of my aunts suffered from Parkinson's disease, so I consider myself very vulnerable. I want to be certain that, when or if I ever develop the symptoms of the disease, there will be hope of a cure.
People have asked me how much hope we can pin on the research. One of the problems is that we do not know that the research will ultimately lead to a cure. In fact, if we knew that, we would not have to carry out the research. It is uncertainty that we are trying to explore. There is a degree of uncertainty, and only by carrying out the research can we resolve the doubts and problems.
Other people have told me, "Even if the research can produce a cure, it will take at least 10 years." The implication is that we should not bother if it is to take that long. In 10 years' time, I would find it hard to say to someone who had developed the symptoms of the disease that we did not take a decision now when we could have done so. It is terribly important that we make the right decision today to allow the research to progress.
Several Members have remarked that if we do not pass the regulations, the research will be done elsewhere. I am sure that it will be done elsewhere, and I find that rather frightening because this country's regulation of such research is probably the best in the world. We have the Conservatives to thank for that, because they passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in 1990 and provided a sound basis for the research that continues today. I am sure that such research will be done abroad, but I want it to be done in this country.

Dr. Michael Clark: If the research were to be done abroad, that would of course be disappointing for science in this country. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would also be moral hypocrisy to allow the research to be done abroad and then to use its findings in this country after we had failed to pass the regulations?

Mrs. Campbell: I could not agree more. The words "moral hypocrisy" would describe such a situation very well. As with other research, such as that conducted on animals, many people do not want embryo research to be done in this country but are prepared to derive the benefits from research done abroad. That is hypocrisy.
People have asked me how we can trust scientists. That is difficult because there is a mistrust of scientists, possibly because of the disasters that we have all experienced, such as the BSE crisis. However, those who study such matters will know that the BSE crisis was due not to scientists but to people who did not listen to scientists and those who refused to fund scientists' important research into scrapie-like diseases. If we had continued that research we might have found a solution to the BSE problem much earlier.
A constituent rang me at lunchtime and asked me to make the point—because he did not think it had been made in the House—that adult stem cells could be used

instead of embryonic stem cells. I told him that the issue had been fully debated in the House last Friday and on Friday 17 November. I also said that although adult stem cells offer great hope for the future, they do not offer a solution at present, and more research into embryonic stem cells is needed to understand the processes by which adult stem cells may be used. I still hold that view, and I told him that that was what I would say in the debate. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to say it.
We should continue the research, and I implore hon. Members to vote for the regulations.

Mr. David Wilshire: Like the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), tonight I plan to follow my conscience rather than my mailbag, which is why I welcome the opportunity to put my conclusions on the record. If in doing so I help one or two other hon. Members, that will be a huge bonus.
I am not a scientist, a medical professional or an expert on morals and ethics, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the 1990 Act. I am also a committed Christian—a very bad one, but a seriously committed one none the less. However, it did not occur to me to consult the bishop of Spelthorne, as my hon. Friend consulted his bishop. It is in those two capacities—as a member of that Committee and as a committed Christian —that I wish to speak now. My views are entirely my own and are personal, and I make absolutely no claim to speak for anybody else.
When I served on the Standing Committee, I found myself in a curious position. At various times, I voted with those who were for experimentation and with those who were against it because I could not persuade myself that all experimentation was wrong as a matter of principle. However, I found myself wanting to hedge it about with adequate and very strict safeguards. Looking back, I believe that that is exactly what we achieved in 1990.
Like my hon. Friend, during those Committee proceedings, I thought long and hard as we debated what it is that makes us human. We found ourselves debating when our humanity begins, and I have wondered about that since. Does it begin when the first two independent cells fuse together or when we finally become capable of independent existence? Does it begin somewhere between those two extremes? As is so often the case with such conundrums, it is far easier to categorise the two extremes than the grey area that lies between.
I concluded then and continue to believe that a small bundle of cells has yet to acquire the essence of our humanity—what some people choose to call a soul. I freely admit that I have not the slightest idea when that change happens, but I am persuaded that it does not offend against our humanity to use human embryonic cells in the first few days of their existence in the way proposed in the regulations, provided that—I stress the words "provided that"—the use of those cells is for the benefit of humankind and is strictly controlled.
Ten years on, I have no regrets that are relevant to this debate, but I have one anxiety about what has been taking place in the past few weeks and what is happening today. As a committed Christian, I am always profoundly uncomfortable when I hear other equally committed


Christians advance absolutist conclusions to moral dilemmas. I have to say in passing, however, that I envy them in one respect: I would lose a great deal less sleep if I could see such issues in black and white because I would be spared the huge amount of agonising that I do over the seemingly infinite number of shades of grey, which is what we are confronting.
The moral dimension of the debate, however, requires me to attempt to balance two seemingly contradictory imperatives. On the one hand, I readily accept the duty to respect human life. For me, all human life is sacred, which means that I need to think long and hard about using human embryos for experimental purposes. On the other hand, I equally accept the duty to care for the sick. Those who argue that such experimentation as we are considering tonight could help people who suffer from, for example, Huntington's or Parkinson's disease, need to be taken very seriously.
Just as in 1990, I believe that somehow or other I must strike a balance between two competing moral imperatives. As I am neither a scientist nor a medical professional, who am I to judge the merits of scientists' claims? The best that I can do is to ask myself whether I am entitled to stand in their way if they really believe that they can help humanity through their research and if they are willing to accept the strictest controls that we will impose on them. As I am not an expert on morals or ethics, who am I to offer a definitive view of what is right and what is wrong? The best that I can do is to ask myself whether I am entitled to allow my subjective religious views to stand in the way of those who desperately need a cure for their suffering.
My personal conclusion is that I shall vote for the draft regulations, having first given notice to the House and to anyone else who will listen to me that scientists, medical professionals and the Government of the day must implement the strictest possible controls, that those must be kept under constant review, and be observed and enforced to the letter.

6 pm

Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my constituency neighbour. A letter that I wrote to a community of nuns in Slough reads:
One of the things that I envy in people like the members of your community, who have a faith, is that you have the comfort of having certainty about these questions. I have to try to work out how to balance the different arguments and I am still struggling with that.
As most Members will know, I concluded that struggle and spoke about it on Friday. It has been strange. I suppose I came out, as some would call it, as having multiple sclerosis. It is known that I am infertile. It is odd that I have suddenly been treated, in the words of The Times, as the "disabled MP". I have become defined by my condition. When we decide on these issues, we need to ensure that we do not let that happen. We must ensure that people with disabilities have rights, and that their rights and views are respected.
I was upset by the speech of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), in which she said that most people who are infertile are guilty of something called life style. It is true that sexually transmitted diseases lead to infertility in many instances, but there are many other reasons for it. Many people who have a restrained life

style acquire sexually transmitted diseases. I admire the energy with which my hon. Friend Minister for Public Health is tackling that issue.
We must ensure that we do not allow ourselves to be pushed off course by a debate that does not form the basis on which a decision should be made. Strangely, most of the discussion on this subject in the newspapers has been about cloning. We shall vote on a set of regulations that simply allow three more purposes for research of embryonic material. Those are to increase knowledge about the development of embryos; to increase knowledge about serious diseases; and to enable any such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious disease.
Let us consider the purposes for which such research is already permitted. It is already permitted to improve the efficacy of contraception and to deal with infertility and genetically inherited diseases, but it is not permitted to deal with many of the other diseases which, we have learned through stem cell research, could be subject to substantial new treatment.
Whatever our view, if we accept the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the existing regulations, it would be unforgivable not to vote for the proposed extension. Members have rightly been worried about the potential of cell nuclear replacement, but it has been said this afternoon that that could not lead to a developed human being. Although that is scientifically impossible now, it is not conceptually impossible. However, it is illegal. We need to be honest with ourselves and recognise that there is a difference between something being impossible and something being illegal.
In theory, cell nuclear replacement could lead to a developed human being. That is why we are all anxious, and why we are discussing that possibility rather than what the debate is supposed to be about. It is right for Members to urge the Minister to seek primary legislation at an early opportunity, before the theoretical possibility becomes a real one. We are all deeply concerned about the theoretical possibility and about ensuring that the rigorous protection that exists in the 1990 Act is backed up and strengthened further by primary legislation. I believe that we should be talking to other countries about their framework for research. In Britain, we have pioneered a framework that provides that, in every case, the scientist must show that there is no substitute for embryonic material. That is the right way to deal with these matters because the embryo deserves special status.
Apart from Members, such as the hon. Member for Congleton, who think that there is never any reason to carry out research on embryos, none of us can in conscience vote against the regulations. We can, however, continue to press the Department to introduce primary legislation at the earliest opportunity.

Dr. Michael Clark: At this stage of the debate, many of the things that one wants to say have already been said. Prior to the debate, I read the speeches that were made on Friday. I found the Minister's speech on Friday illuminating, as I did the speeches of my Select Committee colleagues, the hon. Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who are experts on these matters. They were able to put a strong scientific emphasis on all that we are now debating.
Last Friday and today, the Minister told us about embryonic stem cells and the fact that they are pluripotent. They are therefore capable of generating brain cells, heart muscle, skin tissue and nervous tissue, all of which is important for finding cures for appalling degenerative diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, Parkinson's disease, cancer, stroke and Alzheimer's.
We accept that embryo stem cells may have a special status compared with adult stem cells. We would all prefer, as the Minister and others said, to be able to use adult stem cells for research if that were possible, but there are limitations. If there were no limitations and we could do all that we want to do with adult stem cells, I would vote against the regulations, as I suspect the Minister probably would. It is because we do not have confidence that we can do all that we want with adult stem cells that we must ensure that there are proper regulations to allow us to continue work with embryo stem cells.
I understand that there are moral issues; of course there are. However, science has always troubled people; it has always upset the establishment and challenged the status quo. When Galileo looked beyond the hills and through the clouds, he was accused of looking for heaven. When Darwin decided that he would explain how we came about, and said that it was not through creation but through evolution, he, too, got into trouble with the establishment and the Church. I dare say that those two were accused in their day of playing God.
The self-appointed assessors of science now, if they approve of scientific work, say, "Aren't scientists humanitarian? Isn't it marvellous how science can extend life and the quality of life?" However, if they do not like the scientists' work, they say that the scientists are playing God—the ultimate disapproval. Yet those scientists who ensured that we had purified drinking water, developed pharmaceutical drugs, ensured greater crop yields or pioneered life-saving operations seem to be excused from the charge of playing God. But they were doing just the same—assisting human beings to have a better life than they would have if nature were left to run its course.
We must accept that science is a continuum. One cannot pick and mix in science. One can stop science and make a break anywhere along the line of scientific development, but not without repercussions somewhere along the continuum of the scientific chain. I accept that there must be some limitations on scientific development, but any limitation must be justified. We must say why science should be limited and the case for limiting it must be strong.
The word "science" means knowledge. It is the study of nature and everything around us. Scientific knowledge has been accumulated over a long time: it was gleaned in small quantities; gained in greater quantities; stored, amplified and conjoined with other information until it was developed and could be turned to practical use.
I accept that some practical uses are not good and should not be further developed. However, as human beings, we have the ability to judge between good and bad, to choose and to decide, as we are doing in this debate. But—and it is a very big "but"—there is another type of morality that comes from having knowledge and information that can cure, but not using it. It is a serious

moral issue when information that can help people who are distressed with disease is available but not used. It poses not just a moral issue, but a moral dilemma.
My pro-life friends and constituents are against therapeutic research using embryo stem cells. I respect their views and hope that they will respect mine. I am sorry to disappoint them tonight, when I vote in favour of the regulations. If I voted against the regulations, I might please some of my pro-life constituents, but I would disappoint many, many constituents who are suffering from degenerative diseases and have written to tell me that this research is their only hope of progress. People in their 20s and 30s hope that, within the next 20 or 30 years, something might alleviate their suffering.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who said that we are playing a hoax on these people. We promise to try, but we never promise to succeed. If we do not promise to try, we will never succeed. I do not believe that we are hoaxing people and they do not believe it, either. They know that we will do our best; they will give us time and be patient. God knows that they have been patient long enough, given the suffering that they have had to endure.
I say to the pro-life people that, in my attitude to abortion and euthanasia, I have tried to show that I respect life. However, I am also pro-life with respect to those who are already born and who are suffering. That is just as pro-life as being pro-life in respect of small embryos and cell clusters, about which others may speak.
I know that many other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall conclude by dealing with IVF treatment, to which the Minister and others referred. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) has left the Chamber, but I greatly enjoyed and appreciated his speech.
The Minister told us on Friday and again today that, of the 750,000 embryos that were created between 1991 and 1998, 48,000 were used in research and 237,000 were destroyed. They were produced to help infertile couples to have children, and were later destroyed. That was the decision of those who donated the embryos and it must be respected. We all know that more than one embryo is required if IVF is to have any chance of succeeding. Five or six embryos may be necessary, and four or five will, by definition, be wasted. If no embryo can be created unless it is allowed to develop to its full term, we must, to all intents and purposes, stop IVF now. IVF cannot proceed on the basis of guaranteeing that every single embryo goes full term and becomes a human being.
I suspect that most people do not want to stop IVF. Even some hon. Members who will vote against the measure tonight may still believe that IVF treatment should continue. If so, what is the logic of continuing with IVF treatment, producing 237,000 embryos more than we need, and destroying them rather than allowing them to be used for research that could benefit others?
For those who suffer from degenerative diseases, and in the expectation that stem cell research will help them, I shall vote in favour it of the regulations tonight.

Mr. Bill Tynan: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in an important debate. The fact that so many hon. Members are in the Chamber this evening demonstrates the huge interest in the subject both


in the House and in our constituencies. The telephone calls and correspondence that I have received also demonstrate the importance of the issue.
If there is a cure for today's dreadful diseases, I certainly want to be part of it. However, a decision seems to have been taken that there is only one route—developing embryonic stem cell research. I disagree. I believe that adult stem cell research is an option that we should embrace. We seem to have given up the hope that we can develop from adult stem cells cures for today's diseases.
Having listened with great interest to this afternoon's debate, I do not want us to re-run the debate on the 1990 Act. We should debate how we see the way forward. We have spoken today about increasing knowledge about the creation and development of embryos, increasing knowledge about diseases and enabling any such knowledge to be applied in the development of treatments for disease. I support that. However, the argument is about whether we proceed on the basis of embryo research or of adult stem research.
The study of adult stem cells over the past 30 years has clearly demonstrated that many adult tissues contain stem cells. However, such stem cells have been thought capable of producing only cells that are proper to that tissue. It was not thought that such cells could be reprogrammed. More recently, pluripotent stem cells have been discovered in various types of human tissue—bone marrow, brain, connective tissue of various organs and umbilical cord blood cells. Those cells are capable of producing different types of cells, mainly blood cells, muscle cells and nerve cells. As the British Medical Association has reported, the findings raise the possibility that adult stem cells might some day be coached to grow into organs, regenerate damaged tissue or reconstitute the immune system. The problem of immune rejection might be circumvented if an individual's own cells could be used.
In June, Science magazine reported:
The more research is done, the more scientists seem to realise the potential of adult stem cells. They are able to turn into different types of muscle and nerve i.e. they are pluripotent. Swedish scientists have discovered that stem cells from bone marrow have grown into nerve cells. Blood-producing stem cells can grow into muscle cells, and vice versa.
Adult stem cell research is progressing at enormous speed and has moved on significantly, even since the publication of the Donaldson report. Increasingly, this research is demonstrating that adult stem cells may have the potential to be as effective as embryonic stem cells. Professor Donaldson himself, reporting on research carried out on adult stem cells in mice, said that the research
contradicts the conventional wisdom that stem cells derived from adult tissue have restricted potential to differentiate.
A number of arguments have been put forward in favour of adult stem cell research. First, it has been increasingly demonstrated that adult stem cell research rivals embryonic stem cell research in its capacity to provide a wide variety of tissue. Studies in recent years suggest that stem cells in different adult tissues may be more similar than previously thought and, perhaps, in some cases have a development repertoire close to that of embryonic stem cells. It has increasingly been demonstrated that an adult neural stem cell has a very broad developmental capacity, and could, be used to generate a variety of cell types for transplantation in different diseases.
Italian scientists have revealed that adult neural stem cells have been found to be unexpectedly pliable, and have been successfully converted into muscle tissue. Stem cells from the brains of adult mice were reprogrammed to behave like muscle cells, by being placed in close proximity to mature muscle cells.
It is important that we examine all the options. There has been a tremendous debate, but the regulations have been introduced on the basis that the only alternative is for embryonic stem cell research to be used. I ask hon. Members to consider putting funding into adult stem cell research, as I believe that that would result in some success.

Dr. Evan Harris: The speech by the Minister for Public Health was one of the best speeches that I have heard, in what I accept is my short time here, in terms of her grasp of a complex subject and the clarity with which she put her case. That was extremely helpful.
May I also say, on behalf of some of those who urged the Minister to do so, that it was wise and sensitive of her to have amended the regulations slightly, to make it clear that we were talking about research into serious diseases, rather than carte blanche for medical research generally? The proposals contain a balance of benefits. Even those who take a different view of them will accept that.
We heard powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), on both Friday and today. We also heard persuasive and clear arguments from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and, on Friday, from the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly). It is useful that the Minister heard those contributions, because certain issues will come down the line in later years, and the House will have to address them.
The fact that we are discussing the matter today is proof that there is no automatic slippery slope. We cannot go beyond the point laid down in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 without obtaining parliamentary approval within a democratic and accountable system. Those who say, in debate, that this process would create a slippery slope are, by definition, contradicting their own point. The House may vote against the regulations—although I hope that it does not—and that would prevent our moving down what those people see as a slippery slope. I agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that the slope can go up or down, and I believe that in this instance it is going up, and that we should not be concerned about that danger. However, I am delighted that we are having this debate and that we shall have the chance to vote on the issue.
There are people here who have made it clear that they will always oppose any work on embryos. That view has to be respected, because it is clear, precise and well put, not only in the Chamber but in the organised processes by which it is communicated to MPs across the country. However, that argument is not an exclusive moral argument. I do not believe that the moral arguments are all on that side. Those of us who do not take the view that the spirit enters the human being at conception, or that that is when life begins, are also under a moral imperative, once we have found out about all the other issues, to support the regulations. That is an equally ethical approach, given one's starting point.
The religious arguments are not all on the other side. I do not claim to be an expert on religion, but I take advice from those who are. The hon. Member for Salisbury made it clear that opinion in the Church of England is, at worst, split. At best, it understands the ethical basis on which this kind of research can be carried out. In a paper produced for the Church of England's board of social responsibility, Canon Dr. John Polkinghorne—a well respected theological ethicist—set out the developmental approach to the status of the embryo. It is the approach that I take, and, from what the Minister said, I believe that it is the approach that she and others also take. The paper states:
This stance accords the embryo a profound moral respect on the basis of its potential to develop into a human being, but it sees that ethical status of human personhood as being something that develops with the increasing complexity of being. While an absolute stance is the present official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, a developmental view of human personhood has not historically been absent from Christian thinking. St. Thomas Aquinas held the Aristotelian opinion that 'ensoulment' (presumably, human personhood) took place at 40 days for a male foetus and at 90 days for a female foetus.
As I understand it, their current view was not adopted by the Catholic Church until some point during the 19th century. The paper goes on:
The developmental view underlay the majority opinion in the Warnock Report and it is the basis for the HFE Act of 1990, with its restriction of embryo growth in vitro to 14 days and its permission to use embryos within that limit for tightly defined and specifically licensed research purposes. The embryo is being regarded as very much more than a 'speck of protoplasm', for it may only be manipulated for serious purposes that otherwise would be unattainable. The limit of 14 days is based on the end of the possibility of natural splitting (producing identical twins from a single embryo) and the beginning of differentiation with the onset of the primitive streak. It might be held to be a limit judged with some degree of conservative caution.
That shows that there are people who can describe themselves as religious who do not automatically oppose the regulations.

Dr. Iddon: Is not there a serious moral difficulty here for people who hold a deeply religious point of view? If embryonic stem cell research produced a breakthrough, and it became likely that we could cure one of the many diseases mentioned in the debate, how would we advise such people if they were suffering from that disease? Would the Churches, having objected to the regulations—if they are passed—recommend that they should not accept treatment resulting from the research?

Dr. Harris: Accepting treatment is a personal decision. It is quite reasonable that some people already do not accept certain treatments—vaccines derived from embryonic cell lines, or from foetal cell lines from aborted foetuses, for example. The whole point about the regulations is that they are permissive—I shall come to the question of consent in a moment. They will not force people to accept the treatment resulting from the research for themselves, or, if they were in the position of having to make such a decision, for their families.

Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the smallpox inoculation was discovered partly as the result of Semmelweiss injecting a small child with the

disease and finding that the child's resistance was improved? It does not follow that people who have smallpox injections now are behaving unethically, even though it all started unethically.

Dr. Harris: I agree.
Earlier in our debate, a question was asked about the effectiveness of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, as some considerable responsibility lies with it. Generally, it has not been more lax than society in general, as was suggested. The famous case of Diane Blood, who wanted to use, posthumously, the sperm of her husband to procreate, was opposed down the line by the HFEA, even though that went against public opinion, particularly as portrayed in the tabloid media. The HFEA was unbowing in its opposition to that proposal, even though there was an uproar that that poor lady—as, indeed, she was as the result of her bereavement—could not start a family because she did not have her husband's written consent, as required by the regulations that were then in force. People who are concerned about the HFEA should therefore be reassured that it will not merely yield to public pressure on some of these matters.
One recommendation in the Donaldson report was that the HFEA should deal with the question of consent. Research will not be done on any embryos, and cell nuclear replacement—if it takes place—will not be done with any eggs without the consent of the donors of the embryos and eggs. That will be a personal decision for individuals who will or will not subscribe to the balance of benefits that we are discussing.
Some of the points about adult stem cell research made by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), and also by the hon. Member for Congleton, completely miss the point. I hope that they will be reassured on their concerns about scientific opinion, the potential of adult stem cells, the role of the HFEA and the likely path of scientists themselves. It is not correct, as a previous speaker said, that science is split on the subject. There will always be scientists who, perhaps for their own religious reasons, will express a view—such as that held by anti-evolutionary creationist scientists—which they do not claim as scientific per se, but rather the opinion of a scientist. It is not reasonable to get a scientist to state that view and then say that science is split, simply because there are scientists on both sides. One must look at peer-reviewed overviews of the literature and the state of science. The opinion of, for example, the Wellcome Trust, the Royal Society and the British Medical Association must have more resonance than the opinions of individual scientists.
I have challenged speakers previously, and said that scientists who are working on adult stem cells recognise the need for embryological work to continue at the same time. Indeed, many scientists derive their results from putting adult stem cells in animal models into embryological environments. It would therefore be illogical for them to oppose embryological stem cell research. Those scientists who, perhaps, have the most to lose from research grants going to embryological work will not come out with the views that their science has been cited as backing. Indeed, many have said that they


are appalled that their research has been cited by those who describe it as an exclusive alternative to work with embryonic stem cells.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is entirely honest in the way in which he promotes his point of view and does not take any prisoners, which is good. Does he accept that the purpose of cell nuclear replacement is to create an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient so that cells derived from it are perfectly matched to the patient? Cell nuclear replacement is a technique that was used in the cloning of Dolly the sheep. Therefore, it is scientifically clear that cell nuclear replacement is a technique for the cloning of humans although, admittedly, it is at the first stage. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?

Dr. Harris: Yes.
Another key point about adult stem cells is that their potential is the very factor that makes work on embryonic stem cells so critical. It will be possible to realise the potential of adult-derived stem cells and adult-derived stem cell therapies only if we get answers from the embryological work. The more papers that suggest that, eventually, adult stem cells might work somewhere down the line, the more important it is, in the short to medium term, to allow embryonic stem cell research to take place. That makes the point, but people in the debate have not understood that.

Ms Kelly: What does the hon. Gentleman make of comments by Professor Scolding of Bristol university, who works in the field of adult stem cells? He says that recent peer-reviewed work done since the publication of the Donaldson review undermines the comments of the Royal Society that it would be at least a decade before scientists could overcome the hurdles blocking the therapeutic use of adult, as opposed to embryonic, stem cells.

Dr. Harris: Professor Scolding came to speak at a meeting on Monday night, which was also attended by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and my researcher. I have it on good authority that Professor Scolding said that his view, although that of a scientist, was based not on his science but on his religious perspective. He was fair enough to admit that, and scientists should be allowed to speak about their religious views. However, they should make it clear when they are speaking on a scientific basis.
The HFEA exists to ensure that if adult stem cell research is an obvious alternative to research proposals using embryonic stem cells, it will be encouraged and the embryonic line of research, because of the special status accorded to embryos, will not be allowed. We can trust the HFEA to keep control, as it has done with great success in the past 10 years.
Hon. Members will find that scientists themselves will follow the successful science. Working on embryos will not be easy. One speaker said that there will be a rush to use embryos because the work is easy. It is extremely difficult to derive eggs for cell nuclear replacement. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) has said to me on several occasions, it is not a trivial matter for a woman to donate eggs, whether for embryos for IVF or for this sort of research. Eggs are in extremely short supply. Eventually, there may well be a

better supply of adult stem cells, and science will go where the ease of work and the best results are likely to be. Consent will be needed to do that research, as I have said before. Individual women will have to give consent for their gametes to be used for this sort of work.
Finally, it is likely that if, eventually, there are therapeutic advantages from adult stem cells, that is where the therapies will be. Scientists will flock to that line of work because it will be available in the scale that we need. I maintain that the citing of adult stem cell research as an argument for voting against the regulations is not based on a rationale or science. Some people will oppose the regulations anyway, but it is wrong of them to seek to create a pseudo-scientific argument to justify what is otherwise a respectable opinion.

Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful to have a chance to speak in our debate. I do so on the basis that I, too, have had IVF treatment which, in my case, was successful. I am also a theologian, and this must be the only occasion during my entire time in the House on which I can put those two experiences to use.
The Minister's speech was wonderful, but I take issue with her because I do not agree that ends can justify means—the ends and the means have to be justified. In this instance, I believe that both are. Perhaps the Minister does as well, and I have misrepresented her. However, I believe that the ends and the means are completely justified.
A big argument used by people who do not agree with the measure is not so much about cell replacement but the fact that embryos are destroyed in the process, which is equated with the destruction of life. Clearly, however, that is not the case, as has been shown in the Warnock report, the Polkinghorne report and all the regulations. We are talking about embryos that have the potential for life, which is not the same as being alive. An awful lot of circumstances have to intervene to enable them to become human beings. We should not, therefore, treat them as people, although as human embryos they are worthy of special respect. It has been clearly set out that they have special status and deserve special respect. Indeed, that is partly why the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was established. It has served the country startlingly well and has provided a forum for ethical debates and public consultation. It has ensured that, in comparison with people in most countries around the world, we can take the ethical dimension carefully into account.
For people who are concerned about the family life aspect of the IVF equation, I point out that the right of the child is one of the factors that must be taken into account in the provision of treatment. The needs of any child born of the treatment must be considered, including the right of that child to a father. As I said, the regulatory framework is in place. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) spoke about policing, but I have no worries whatever on that score.
Time is short, so I shall keep my remarks brief in the hope that more hon. Members can speak. However, I should like to speak about the ethics of medical research and whether another form of research should be used. With regard to the criteria and qualifications that should be taken into account, I am again satisfied that the means


and the ends are justified. It seems to me that medical research should cost as little as possible in terms of human and other life. Of course, that point leads to a consideration of animal rights.
Medical research should also be as non-invasive as possible and should be the most likely option to achieve success. Thus, if embryonic cells will produce a better result than adult stem cells, it is preferable to use the former, as research on them is most likely to achieve success. Medical research should also occur in an environment that replicates the human condition as closely as possible. Animal research is sometimes appropriate, but if an environment is available that is more closely related to the person who is to be treated, there is pressure and impetus to consider it first.
Embryo research will occur only with the consent of the people who have created the embryos. That is a major consideration. People already donate their organs for transplant, but there is an obvious difference between donating a liver or heart and providing genetic material to be used for a non-procreative purpose. Indeed, that is a dramatically different step, which is why informed consent is important and why people must consider the implications carefully.
I have been through that process and know what it is like to look at embryos that are part of one's genetic material and which have the potential for life. In the circumstances in question, they could never create life. In my case, they could not be used for donation because they are not of good enough quality, as I am too old, although I might not want to give them away as they are part of my genetic material. However, I must ask what the embryos will do if they cannot create life or reproduce something of my husband and me. Is not it special that, although they cannot create a child, they might help to save somebody's life, improve the quality of somebody's life or stop illnesses for future generations?
All those processes and considerations can be strange. It can be a huge journey to think through all the issues while sitting in front of a form. Of course, those issues are already tried and tested. It is for people to make a decision in their hearts and to make up their own minds on what they can and cannot accept.
For all those reasons, I believe that the means and ends are justified. I hope that the House will agree to the regulations and enable the science to proceed. It has already given people such as me the chance to have a child, and can now give other people a chance to live.

Mr. Edward Leigh: This has been a good debate. Our discussion has generally been good natured and both sides of the argument have been put across well. It is difficult for somebody such as me to make the speech that I am about to make, for only five minutes or so, as one is faced with people who are suffering appallingly. They look at people such as me and ask how we can stand in the face of medical science that could relieve their suffering.
First, I shall try to meet halfway some of the proponents of the regulations. I accept that embryo-based research is superior at the present stage of scientific development to that based on adult stem cells. Although I acknowledge

that, I ask those who take a stance that is different from mine to accept that science is moving quickly and that there are alternative views, which were well articulated earlier by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). I shall not repeat them, as the hon. Gentleman spoke on them at length.
However, I should like briefly to refer to a view expressed in Science on 25 February this year by Dr. Vogel, who wrote that adult stem cells become different types of cells only when they are given new signals to do so. When they are placed in their usual environment, they seem to produce only the cell types of that particular tissue, which is exactly what is needed to repair such tissue safely. Dr. Vogel wrote that
besides skirting the ethical dilemmas surrounding research on embryonic and fetal stem cells, adult cells … might have another advantage: they may be easier to manage.
I fully accept the validity of arguments advanced by other hon. Members with different points of view, but I point out for hon. Members who are concerned about the moral and ethical dilemmas that much scientific opinion suggests that adult stem cell research may be superior to embryo research in future.
Secondly, it is important to decide how the debate is defined and to get the definitions right. Surely we must accept that we are not discussing an instant panacea. People who are currently cruelly afflicted by illness should not believe that we are discussing a panacea in respect of their serious conditions. Paragraph 4.31 of the Donaldson report states:
it is not known whether the cell nuclear replacement technique will be successful in creating an early human embryo.
It cannot therefore be claimed that research on cloned human embryos I has overwhelming potential. The Donaldson report admits that
gaining knowledge about how stem cells differentiate, and on how this process might be controlled to produce the particular kinds of tissue needed for treatment, is only just beginning.
An article published in Science on 1 December states that
the human embryonic stem cells and fetal germ cells that made headlines in November 1998 because they can, in theory, develop into any cell type have so far produced relatively modest results.
I hope that we can all agree that the research would not produce an instant panacea.
My third and strongest point relates to cloning. I hope that I may refer to the definitions provided by the European Parliament, which is not filled with people who will always agree with my point of view. It defines human cloning as the creation of human embryos that have the same genetic make-up as another human being, dead or alive, at any stage of their development, without any possible distinction regarding the methods used. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who has been a leading proponent of the regulations, for accepting the point that I put to him. I asserted that the purpose of cell nuclear replacement is to create an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient, so that the cells derived therefrom are perfectly matched to the patient. The technique of cell nuclear replacement was used to clone Dolly the sheep. Thus it is scientifically clear that cell nuclear replacement is a technique for the cloning of human beings. Let us at least accept that point of view.
Every hon. Member is opposed to reproductive cloning, but let us get our definitions right. As the European Parliament and many experts have accepted, we are


discussing the same process that would be used for the cloning of human beings. Although cell nuclear replacement and embryo stem cell research are different things, I believe that they are none the less being used as euphemisms for cloning. In fact, the Donaldson committee was originally called the chief medical officer's expert group on cloning, but that title was dropped when it reported to the Department of Health. Dr. John Wyatt, professor of neonatal paediatrics at the Royal Free and University College medical school in London, has written:
The redefinition of human embryos as mere biological material or "totipotent stem cells" in order to allay public concerns smacks of semantic trickery rather than responsible debate.
Let us get our point of reference clear; then I will sit down and allow the Minister to speak. We are talking about an opportunity to advance medical science and to relieve human suffering to an enormous extent—although we do not know how far as it is not an instant panacea. We are talking about the creation of an embryo that is genetically exactly the same as the patient. That embryo, if allowed to implant—which I agree the Government do not want to happen—would result in the creation of a human being.

Dr. Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: No. I have been told that I must allow the Minister time to reply to the debate.
What we are doing today is therefore very important. I urge the House to pause very carefully before it makes its final decision. It is quite different from what we talked about in 1990 because, for the first time, we are saying to the science community that we shall create cloned human beings—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, just listen. We shall create cloned human embryos which, if allowed to implant in the womb, would grow into human beings. That is what we are voting on tonight. [Interruption.] It is. There is no point hon. Members shaking their head. I have read out the scientific evidence. The whole point of the process is to create an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient so that when stem cells are grown from it, it will not be rejected by the patient.
I accept that we do not have to have a religious view on the matter. We do not have to worry about that. We do not have to talk about whether the embryo has a soul or not, but it is entirely new. Where will it all end? Have we not got a right in the House to say to the science community, "Just pause; wait; listen to the other voices"? Let us have primary legislation and do the thing right. We should not take a step that we may live to regret.

Yvette Cooper: With the permission of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
We have had an excellent debate. It is perhaps the most thoughtful and considered of all that I have listened to in the House. Given the strong views that people hold and the emotive issues involved, I pay tribute to all those who have spoken in this debate and in the Adjournment debates for the respect that they have shown for opposing views.
I welcome, too, the cross-party nature of the debate. We have heard eloquent and well-argued speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House in favour of

and against the regulations, including from those involved in the 1990 Act, such as the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). We have heard the view of those who could be affected and whose family could be affected by the research, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart); the view of those who morally oppose the regulations, including the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh); and the view of doctors—the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate).
It has been a powerful debate and a measured one, too, but it is clear that the science is very obvious now. The research shows that embryonic stem cells have immense potential to help us understand serious degenerative disease and to research cures or treatments, too. In particular, they offer great hope for the treatment of disease and injury where tissue is destroyed and will not repair, such as with Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, heart disease and cancer.
Hon. Members are right to say that we should not promise immediate cures. As I have said, the research could take a year, 10, 20 or 30 years. We do not know how long it will take, but it holds considerable potential. For many diseases and conditions, it holds out the only hope anywhere on the horizon.
The science is clear that embryonic stem cells hold far more potential than adult stem cells, even though work with adult cells is the holy grail for many scientists. As many eminent scientists and medics have made clear and as many hon. Members have argued, important breakthroughs in adult stem cell research may never take place without embryonic stem cell research first.
With the greatest respect, I caution hon. Members who oppose embryonic research against arguing that adult stem cell research has just as much potential as embryonic stem cell research. I understand that many hon. Members who oppose embryo research in principle are pinning their hopes on adult stem cells instead. It is legitimate to argue that embryonic stem cell research is wrong, and that therefore the only potential that we have is from adult stem cell research, but that is different from arguing that the science shows that adult stem cell research has more potential. The science does not show that. I caution hon. Members against believing that they can support all the most exciting potential breakthroughs in this area and vote against the regulations at the same time. They cannot.
The science is clear, but what is at stake today is not simply the science but the ethics. It is a debate not between ethics and science, but about the ethical framework within which scientific research should take place. That in the end is what it is about.

Dr. Fox: The Minister has said that it is perfectly legitimate for hon. Members to want adult stem cells to be used. Were we to get to the most optimistic view and were adult stem cells to show great potential, would it be the Government's intention to stop the legal use of embryonic cells?

Yvette Cooper: We have already covered that clearly in the debate. The 1990 Act clearly sets out that if there


are breakthroughs in adult stem cells and if there are breakthroughs in embryonic stem cells that allow us to move to adult cell research, the embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary. If it is no longer necessary, it will not be permitted under the Act. It will not be licensed. The Act provides those protections and constraints, and it is absolutely right that it does so.
Some hon. Members believe that all research on embryos is unjustified on principle. I respect the eloquent arguments that they have advanced to that effect. They argue that the embryos should be accorded the same respect and rights as human beings. Others argue that that is not the moral position that we should take. For example, the Warnock report said:
The human embryo is entitled to a measure of respect beyond that accorded to an embryo of other species. Such respect is not absolute and may be weighed against the benefits arising from the proposed research.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that we should not argue that the ends justify the means. I agree. I would not support a utilitarian approach that says that so long as the ends are good enough, any means is justified. That is why I strongly support the constraints that are set out in the 1990 Act, which says that research can be done only up to 14 days, only where embryos are essential to the research and only where there is a proper licence. Constraints exist on human reproductive cloning, so that no research on cell nuclear replacement can take place beyond 14 days. The cells cannot be implanted in the womb. That is illegal.
It is right that those constraints are in place, but I remind the House of the strong moral case in favour of doing the research. In an earlier debate, I quoted a woman with Parkinson's disease. She said that those considering their votes on the issue
ought to have a word with my little girl and ask her about the value of life. All she wants is that I am freed from this awful disease so that she has a mother able to care for her throughout her young life, rather than one who is increasingly disabled by a disease for which there may be a cure if this research is allowed to proceed.
That is the choice for the House.
Watching at home with bated breath and in the Gallery are many who hope that the research will deliver the cures and treatments to turn their lives around. Many of them know that the research comes too late for them, but they are here on behalf of the next generation, hoping for the research that will allow future generations who walk in their footsteps to walk tall, freed from pain and disability. We cannot guarantee to them that the research will transform their lives, but we can tell them that we did not turn our backs on the possibility that it might.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].

The House divided: Ayes 366, Noes 174.

Division No. 12]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Alexander, Douglas
Ashton, Joe


Allan, Richard
Atherton, Ms Candy


Allen, Graham
Atkins, Charlotte


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Austin, John





Bailey, Adrian
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Banks, Tony
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Barron, Kevin



Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beard, Nigel
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Begg, Miss Anne
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bercow, John
Davidson, Ian


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Berry, Roger
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Blackman, Liz
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony



Blears, Ms Hazel
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blizzard, Bob
Denham, John


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blunt, Crispin
Doran, Frank


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Dowd, Jim


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Drown, Ms Julia


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradshaw, Ben
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brake, Tom
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brand, Dr Peter
Ennis, Jeff


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fisher, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Burden, Richard
Flint, Caroline


Burgon, Colin
Flynn, Paul


Burstow, Paul
Follett, Barbara


Butler, Mrs Christine
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Foulkes, George



Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gardiner, Barry


Caton, Martin
Garnier, Edward


Cawsey, Ian
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gerrard, Neil



Gibson, Dr Ian


Chaytor, David
Gidley, Sandra


Chidgey, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Church, Ms Judith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)



Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clelland, David
Harris, Dr Evan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Harvey, Nick


Clwyd, Ann
Hawkins, Nick


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cooper, Yvette
Hendrick, Mark


Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Corston, Jean
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith


Cran, James
Hinchliffe, David


Cranston, Ross
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas






Home Robertson, John
Mates, Michael


Hood, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hope, Phil
Merron, Gillian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howells, Dr Kim
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moffatt, Laura


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hutton, John
Moore, Michael


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moran, Ms Margaret


Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morley, Elliot


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)



Jenkin, Bernard
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Jenkins, Brian



Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mountford, Kali


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Oaten, Mark


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Hara, Eddie



O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Ottaway, Richard


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Page, Richard


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Paice, James


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pickthall, Colin


Keetch, Paul
Pike, Peter L


Kemp, Fraser
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Key, Robert
Prescott, Rt Hon John


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Prior, David


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Prosser, Gwyn


Kirkwood, Archy
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lammy, David
Rammell, Bill


Lansley, Andrew
Rapson, Syd


Laxton, Bob
Raynsford, Nick


Lepper, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Leslie, Christopher
Rendel, David


Letwin, Oliver
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Levitt, Tom



Linton, Martin
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Livingstone, Ken
Robinson Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lock, David
Rogers, Allan


Love, Andrew
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McCabe, Steve
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ruddock, Joan



Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Savidge, Malcolm


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Sawford, Phil


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


MacShane, Denis
Shaw, Jonathan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madel, Sir David
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Major, Rt Hon John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Maples, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)





Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Soames, Nicholas
Tyler, Paul


Soley, Clive
Tyrie, Andrew


Southworth, Ms Helen
Viggers, Peter


Spellar, John
Vis, Dr Rudi


Squire, Ms Rachel
Walley, Ms Joan


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Ward, Ms Claire


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Watts, David


Steinberg, Gerry
White, Brian


Stevenson, George
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wicks, Malcolm


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stringer Graham



Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Wills, Michael



Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Woodward, Shaun


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Worthington, Tony


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Todd, Mark
Wyatt, Derek


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Mike Hall and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. David Jamieson.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Dismore, Andrew


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Dobbin, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Drew, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Nigel


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Faber, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Fallon, Michael


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bennett, Andrew F
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benton, Joe
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fox, Dr Liam


Borrow, David
Gale, Roger


Brady, Graham
Galloway, George


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Breed, Colin
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Godsiff, Roger


Browne, Desmond
Goggins, Paul


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gray, James


Burns, Simon
Green, Damian


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John


Cable, Dr Vincent
Grieve, Dominic


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grogan, John


Cann, Jamie
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Casale, Roger
Hague, Rt Hon William


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hammond, Philip


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heald, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Colman, Tony
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cotter, Brian
Horam, John


Cox, Tom
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Crausby, David
Hoyle, Lindsay


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hunter, Andrew


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)






Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Kidney, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
May, Mrs Theresa


Leigh, Edward
Meale, Alan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Mudie, George


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Nicholls, Patrick


Lidington, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Olner, Bill


Llwyd, Elfyn
Paisley, Rev Ian


Loughton, Tim
Pendry, Tom


Luff, Peter
Pickles, Eric


McAvoy, Thomas
Pope, Greg


McCrea, Dr William
Pound, Stephen


Macdonald, Calum
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McFall, John
Quinn, Lawrie


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Randall, John


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Robathan, Andrew


McLoughlin, Patrick
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McNulty, Tony
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


McWalter, Tony
Rooney, Terry


Malins, Humfrey
Ross, William (E Lond'y)





Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Roy, Frank
Touhig, Don


St Aubyn, Nick
Trend, Michael


Sanders, Adrian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tynan, Bill


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Vaz, Keith


Singh, Marsha
Walter, Robert


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wardle, Charles



Wareing, Robert N



Waterson, Nigel


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Webb, Steve


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Streeter, Gary
Wilkinson, John


Stunell, Andrew
Willis, Phil


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Kevin McNamara.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations, which were laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.

ESTIMATES DAY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY, FIRST PART]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2000–01

Class III, Vote 1

Urban Regeneration

[Relevant documents: Sixteenth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1999–2000, on the Implications of the European Commission Ruling on Gap Funding Schemes for Urban Regeneration in England, HC 714, and the Government's response thereto, Cm. 4923; and The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Annual Report 2000, Cm. 4604.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £81,746,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2001 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on payments to the Housing Corporation: Housing Revenue Account Subsidy; grants towards and advice on the renewal of private sector housing; the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund; homelessness, including the Rough Sleepers Unit; housing management; rent and leasehold services; support for the UK construction industry; planning and minerals research and other planning programmes; payments to the Ordnance Survey (Trading Fund); the London Development Agency; Regional Development Agencies; the New Deal for Communities and other help for deprived neighbourhoods; Single Regeneration Budget; Urban Regeneration Agency (English Partnerships); Housing Action Trusts; Estate Action; Groundwork; coalfields regeneration; European Union agency payments including those for ports and railways in Wales; European Regional Development Fund projects not funded by or in advance of receipts; Countryside Agency; Nature Conservancy Council for England; National Parks Grant; bulk pensions transfers; and sundry other grants-in-aid, grants and payments in support of housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy and countryside and wildlife initiatives, including related research, publicity and publications.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am delighted to have the chance to debate the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on gap funding and the Government's response to our report. I thank all those who helped with the report, including those who sent in evidence or agreed to be questioned by the Committee, our specialist adviser David Lunts, and all the Committee staff.
In politics, I usually have respect for my opponents. Although they may be misguided or just plain wrong, they usually believe very firmly in what they are doing. Only occasionally, one comes across someone who can be described as really evil—enjoying power for its own sake and using it in an entirely capricious manner with no concern or regard for the consequent destruction and misery. The European Union Competition Commissioner, Commissioner Monti, is such a man.
In deciding to stop the United Kingdom's gap funding programme, Commissioner Monti has dealt a blow to much of urban Britain that is equal to the damage that was caused in many of our urban centres by Axis bombing during the second world war. He has done so because of

a perverse belief in an economic theory of competition that is totally divorced from reality. As we said in our report,
The Commission's decision is perverse and bizarre. The previous Competition Commissioner found the Partnership Investment Programme acceptable, but, on the arrival of Commissioner Monti, an academic with renewed zeal and determination to search for breaches of State Aid rules, the original Commission decision was over-turned.
We go on to state:
Moreover, the Commission's view that it is acceptable for the public sector to bear risk using tax payers' money but not the private sector is illogical. We must conclude that the European Commission took its decision casually without regard for the consequences of its action. As witnesses have stated, having made this disastrous decision, the Competition Directorate General now considers that it is our problem, not the Commission's.
In paragraph 46, we state:
It is extraordinary that while the Regional Policy Directorate General of the Commission spends immense sums
on regional aid, the Competition Directorate could destroy that aid.
I should explain the background. For the past 30 years, more and more sites in urban Britain—particularly in our big cities, urban conurbations and small towns, and sometimes even in villages—have outlived their original purpose. However, it has been too expensive for anyone to do remedial work on that land and to restore buildings for new uses on a purely commercial basis. To put it simply, the possible rent from such new development would not cover the costs of the development itself.
Consequently, the Government, using English Partnerships, came up with the partnership investment programme, which is more commonly known as gap funding. When English Partnerships felt that the PIP scheme could help with urban regeneration, it offered a grant intended to bridge the gap between the cost of the development and the potential rent generated by the development.
Such schemes have been increasingly important in the past 10 years, under both the previous Administration and the current one. Many witnesses emphasised to us that not only were the schemes important in their own right, but they acted as seedcorn to encourage other developers to develop nearby sites on a purely commercial basis.
For much of 1997, 1998 and 1999, Commissioner Monti and his officials were questioning whether such schemes broke European Union competition policy. This time last year, he scored a double-whammy by deciding that the scheme was illegal under EU rules. At a stroke, he destroyed the main plank of the United Kingdom's urban regeneration policy and reinforced a view which is very strongly held by many of my constituents that the EU is a bureaucrats' bonanza.
I have to say that I am disappointed that United Kingdom Ministers did not make a much greater fuss about the decision. I appreciate the difficulty that 300 schemes were in the pipeline and could, without a compromise, have been put at risk. I understand those pressures.
The compromise was that, although no new schemes could be approved, the 300 schemes in the pipeline could continue. However, that seems to be absolutely illogical. Either the schemes are legal and we should be able to continue with them or they are illegal. We cannot have


such a compromise. Moreover, there is always the risk that someone will go to the Court of Auditors and it will decide that money provided to the schemes has to be repaid.
The Commission suggests that, instead of the schemes being operated by private companies, with state aid bridging the gap in future, they will have to be run by the Government, the regional development agencies or other local bodies such as councils and regeneration companies. Such a proposal seems totally illogical. Those bodies would have to lay out the full cost of running a scheme, and then sell the scheme on at a loss. The problem is that the public sector will have to find 10 or even 20 times as much money to get the schemes going as they would if they merely had to bridge the gap.
I know that the Government have given the RDAs some extra money and that schemes are in the pipeline, but serious problems remain. I do not believe that the RDAs have the staff or the skills to pick up all the good schemes that should come forward.
In addition, there is doubt about whether the RDAs can be effective in regions outside assisted areas. We need to emphasise that some of the most successful gap funding schemes have been in towns that are totally outside the assisted areas. Cities that are very prosperous in general often have a rundown inner core. Gap funding could make a major difference to such areas.
I shall not detain the House, but I hope that, when she replies to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister will say where the negotiations with the EU, and particularly with Commissioner Monti, have got to. How soon will a replacement scheme be in place? What is happening to ensure that the RDAs have the skilled personnel to carry out schemes in future? What is being done to avoid the waste that occurs when private companies develop people's skills for the schemes? Will they be able to offer the RDAs contracts to do the work for them?
In their response, the Government said that they were looking at compulsory purchase order procedures, but a key element in gap funding has been the way in which private developers have been able to put together packages of land. I hope that the Government will make it clear that the RDAs will be able to use speeded-up CPO procedures to secure the land assembly that is so crucial.
Will the Minister say whether the new schemes will be available in all those parts of the country where otherwise thriving cities have disadvantaged urban communities? Will they be available only in development areas? Will there be limits on the amount of funding made available to them? The suggestion is that, even in development areas, the amount of state aid will be severely limited.
Finally, does the Minister really appreciate the anger felt by so many people in Britain, and the contempt that they have for the behaviour of Commissioner Monti? He has acted out of academic spite, and destroyed an important part of the lifeline that would have secured urban regeneration in Britain. I hope that the Minister will get the message over to Brussels that most of us are disgusted with the behaviour that we have seen.

Mr. Don Foster: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and I share his concern about the issues that he has raised

in respect of gap funding. Like him, I look forward to the response that the Minister will give later. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my not pursuing the points that he raised, as I wish to address my remarks predominantly to the other report produced by the Select Committee. I also want to make some more wide-ranging remarks about urban regeneration.
I was delighted by the words employed by the Deputy Prime Minister when he launched the White Paper entitled, "Our Towns and Cities: The Future, Delivering an Urban Renaissance". He said that he wanted
sustainable communities … where economic prosperity and social justice go hand in hand.
Liberal Democrat Members entirely agree with that. More importantly, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared to agree with another key Liberal Democrat analysis when he said:
To be successful, plans need to be shaped by local people for local people … local people must be fully engaged from the outset.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches entirely endorse that approach. We also agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister went on to say:
A good council is one that listens to, leads and builds up local communities—[Official Report, 16 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 1086.]
Having endorsed all that, we want to put on record the view that nothing could have been more counter-productive over the past 30 years than the central Government belief that they knew all there was to know about urban regeneration, and that they could hand solutions down to the grateful poor in our decaying cities.
Yet, having criticised central Government, it is only fair also to express some criticism of local government. The same top-down view can be just as harmful when local authorities decide that they have all the answers for the communities that they serve. Local authorities are also guilty of imposing their solutions, of bulldozing existing homes and of creating huge housing developments where people are isolated from their neighbours. In some cases, that has given criminals plenty of space in which to hide from and evade the law.
In principle, at least, there appears to be much agreement between the Government and the Liberal Democrats, but what will happen in practice? The Deputy Prime Minister's speech on 16 November was full of promise, but what about the delivery? This Estimates debate is about money, so we must consider what is being done with the money already devoted to the areas in question, and what will be done with the money that is to be spent. Will that money be spent wisely? Is it even going to be spent at all?
I shall deal first with the question of how the money will be spent. For some time, the Government have trailed their action plan for urban renewal. Their response to the 11th report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs claimed:
The action plan for neighbourhood renewal due to be published later this year will deal more specifically with the action needed to tackle the problem of deprived areas.
Later in the same response, the Government were a little more specific and said that the action plan on neighbourhood renewal was
due to be published before the end of the year


On 16 November, the Deputy Prime Minister went even further, and said that
we have set up a neighbourhood renewal fund of £800 million and will shortly be setting out our action plan for neighbourhood renewal.—[Official Report, 16 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 1088.]
Five weeks have passed since then. The date is 19 December, and we are nearly at Christmas. As far as I am aware, there is still no sign of the action plan. I hope that the Minister will say when that much awaited plan will be made available.
Even when it arrives, it will still be only a plan. The question then will be whether the plan, having been made available so late, will be able to deliver much before the next general election.
The Deputy Prime Minister was right to stress that if we want to have urban regeneration we desperately need to ensure that the relevant key workers—police, health workers and social workers—are in place and are able to buy homes. The right hon. Gentleman said that £250 million would be allocated over the next three years for that purpose and that the Government would set out details following on from the housing Green Paper. Even more recently, another Government document referred to
around 10,000 key workers, particularly teachers, nurses and the police.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether a definitive list exists of who those key workers will be. We know that health service workers will be eligible, but will that mean that a person working in a general practitioner's health centre practice will be provided with support? We know that teachers will be helped, but will the much more poorly paid and vital teaching assistants be helped? Unless those matters are sorted out quickly, there is no chance of action before the election.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made an important point about what the Government have said in respect of compulsory purchase powers. The judicious use of such powers will be very important in future urban regeneration. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that new legislation will ultimately be provided, yet there is no reference to any legislation to deal with compulsory purchase in the Gracious Speech. So presumably, "ultimately" means that we will have to wait until after the election at least for some movement.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the Government's response in which they make it clear that it is possible to make a lot of progress on CPOs without primary legislation, simply using the regulations.

Mr. Foster: I have, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. He will recall that in his speech of 16 November, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that there may be a need for further legislation for some of the more imaginative uses and schemes that he—and, I hope, the hon. Gentleman—want introduced. The Deputy Prime Minister has acknowledged the need to consider additional legislation. My question is whether we will see any reference to those changes, and even consultation on them, this side of the election.
It would be wrong to suggest that the Government have not been taking action on urban renewal. The real question is what is happening, and whether it has been happening in the right place. I suspect that if I asked right hon. and

hon. Members which area of the country was fortunate enough to have eight regeneration projects, they might suggest Moss Side in Manchester, Tower Hamlets or Peckham. In fact, the answer is the county of Herefordshire. It has managed to acquire eight regeneration projects, despite being 196th in the index of local deprivation. Many local authorities which are higher up that list because their areas are far more deprived than Herefordshire have far fewer urban regeneration projects, and some have none.
Chesterfield, for example, which is 91st on the index, has no Government initiatives whatever. Newcastle-under-Lyme, which is 19th on the list—near the top—has only two projects. That is a quarter of the number operating in the far less deprived Herefordshire.
There is, sadly, no correlation between regeneration initiatives under the Government and levels of deprivation. We could say that credit should go to the officers and members of Herefordshire county council for all their hard work on successful bids. However, even the bidding scheme has got out of hand. Council officers are spending more and more time preparing detailed bids for funds of one sort or another through this plethora of schemes. Yet on the whole, that time is wasted and should be spent on service delivery.
The research shows that the majority of bids are unsuccessful. In some areas it is rather more than that. For the European regional development fund, 73 per cent. of bids have been successful. That seems good news until we realise what they were successful in achieving. Even those which were successful got only 37 per cent. of the money for which they had bid.
There is a plethora of different schemes. In my office, recently, we looked at 53 of the schemes introduced by the Government. We discovered that there is a huge and frightening overlap that makes it difficult for people even to know which bid to make for a scheme. All sorts of anomalies have occurred. There was a wonderful example in Staffordshire, where a bid was put in for a crime reduction scheme to help the local community. That included building a path 200 yd long. Because a small part of the path fell outside the precise boundary of the single regeneration budget scheme, the whole scheme was denied.
Other anomalies make it difficult in some of the areas that are not so high on the list of deprived areas. I would never claim that my constituency of Bath is particularly deprived. However, like many other right hon. and hon. Members who represent apparently affluent areas, there is within my constituency a number of deprived but small areas. It is often difficult to find a Government scheme that will enable funds to be provided to help the regeneration of those comparatively small areas.
I recently had a letter from Mr. Alex Schlesinger, chairman of the London road partnership in Bath. He wrote a couple of weeks ago expressing his concern about the lack of availability of funds for the regeneration of relatively small areas such as the Snow Hill estate on the London road. He had been told by the Government office of the south-west that funding would not be available for such an area because it was statistically insignificant. I can assure the Government office that the deprivation in that area is not insignificant.
Mr. Schlesinger's letter asked what alternative sources of funding the Government had in mind particularly since past Administrations have made it practically impossible for local authorities to regenerate such areas without financial assistance from other sources.

Ms Candy Atherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I will happily give way, especially if the hon. Lady has an answer to my constituent's concern.

Ms Atherton: The hon. Gentleman talks about the south-west, where the regional development agency is making massive strides in Cornwall. Is he suggesting that the more deprived areas of Cornwall should be giving money to Bath?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady entirely misses the point. The question is how we define a deprived area. Is an area considered deprived only if it is very large? That is the way in which the current system operates. I hope that she will acknowledge that, for example, relatively small areas such as Snow Hill in my constituency—I am sure that she has similar estates in hers—need a great deal of support, well beyond the resources of the local council to provide. Yet, because of their size, they are denied access to the many different initiatives that have been introduced by the Government.
I hope that the Minister will respond specifically to my constituent's concern, which is no doubt shared by many other right hon. and hon. Members, as to what will be done to provide funding for those smaller areas. At the same time, we welcome the support given to the hon. Lady's constituency and to Cornwall itself, which I recognise is a particularly deprived part of the country.
Some 2,500 projects have stemmed from the 53 initiatives to which I have referred, and there is huge overlap between the schemes. The other problem is that the Government have a tendency to launch project after project, announcing how much money will be available for them, but we never subsequently find out what has happened to the money that has been announced. For instance, the Government announced that £112.5 million would be made available for the new deal for communities project. However, only £48.7 million was spent, because it was difficult for people to find their way through the bureaucracy and the bidding scheme within the required time scale.
The Deputy Prime Minister has frequently referred in the Chamber to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and its work. Of the budget of £27.7 million allocated to that project, £26.7 million is unspent. It has spent only 4 per cent. of its budget within the time frame.

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): indicated dissent.

Mr. Foster: The Minister shakes her head but my figures are direct from the Library. If she wishes to challenge them, I will be interested to hear her figures. I will give her another figure. Of the £80.8 million that the sure start project was allocated, it has spent only £19 million in the time frame.
Often, the money cannot be carried forward to subsequent years. Early excellence centres spent only 41 per cent. of the budget and employment zones are underspent by a total of £27 million. The single regeneration budget is underspent by £44.5 million in the past three years. The European regional development fund is underspent by a staggering £250 million, which is more than 10 per cent. of its budget.
I hope that we will hear from the Minister whether the Government plan at least to allow those underspends to be carried forward to subsequent years. I hope that they will recognise that one reason why the money has not been spent is because of the bureaucracy of the system—not because there is no need for it—which makes it difficult for people to get their hands on it as quickly as they would like. I hope that it is not a case of the Government making announcement after announcement, but not being concerned about what happens next.

Mr. Mike Hancock: Before my hon. Friend moves on, is there any evidence to show that underspends can be carried forward in certain circumstances? If so, will my hon. Friend give us examples? In my experience, it has been difficult to carry forward any of the money.

Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend asks me to cite examples. No doubt the Minister will talk about the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in her reply, which can carry forward the money. Unfortunately, many of the schemes to which I referred are not allowed to do so under current regulations.
Notwithstanding the problems, there are a number of good examples of regeneration schemes, which are particularly successful when local people have been directly involved. In the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to spend a number of days in Liverpool looking at some of the work there, which covers a wide range of areas that encompass what we would define as urban regeneration.
In Liverpool, area committees play an important part and make many decisions that would in the past have been made by the council, liaising directly with service providers, establishing a variety of different partnerships and even employing people directly.
I was particularly impressed by the work of the North Liverpool Regeneration Company, which has set up a number of projects to employ people and give them opportunities to develop their talents and to make good use of premises that have been left empty for far too long. I was impressed by the work that it had done on anti-social behaviour in a unit that has brought together, in the spirit of all regeneration work, a range of different partner—education, housing, the youth service and many other agencies.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that some schemes work well and some people can get through all the so-called bureaucracy, but that the money is not going to Bath.

Mr. Foster: I have a high regard for the hon. Lady, but she makes a strange point. I have been clear. So far, my argument has been that there are too many projects that


overlap and that the Government announced large sums of money that, sadly, because of the bureaucracy of the system, are not fully spent, which is a waste. The bidding scheme for the money is hugely bureaucratic, which makes it difficult for people to get their hands on it. Despite that fact, it would be wrong to deny that there are some imaginative and exciting schemes from which we can learn. I was citing an example in Liverpool that builds on the approach for which the Deputy Prime Minister has called—involving local people to determine the way forward. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree with me and certainly with the Deputy Prime Minister that often—

Mrs. Dunwoody: I always agree with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady says that she always agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister, but I have been in the Chamber on so many occasions when that has not been the case. On this occasion, she probably would agree. The Deputy Prime Minister believes—and I agree—that the people who live with the problem are best placed to find solutions, given support.
That is certainly the case in Norris Green in Liverpool, which urgently needs regeneration. The local community has come together and developed the ideas. With the support of the council, it has been given the opportunity to appoint architects, lawyers and advisers to help in the development of what seems, on the surface at least, to be an exciting way forward.
If the hon. Lady agrees about that, I hope that she will share my concern about another area where a different approach has been adopted. I have also visited Newcastle upon Tyne, where I was told about a so-called impressive scheme. The council introduced, "Going for Growth", and consulted the people, asking if they wanted improved public transport, job opportunities and green areas. Of course, the local people said yes. Only when they were confronted by journalists and television camera crews asking them what they thought about plans to bulldoze their homes did they begin to look at the so-called wonderful scheme in more detail and to discover that, although no mention of it had been made in consultation, it involved the demolition of up to 6,500 homes. Clearly, that is an example of where local people have not been directly involved as they should be.
The hon. Lady has given me an opportunity to summarise my arguments. The principle of what the Government want to achieve is right. I am genuinely concerned that the mechanism that has been adopted leaves us with too many diverse schemes with different funding regimes and with a complex bureaucracy, which is not the best way to ensure that the much-needed regeneration of our urban areas takes place.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: I welcome the Government's comprehensive approach to urban regeneration. This must be the first time that explicitly, as a matter of policy, economic, social and environmental issues have been brought together and tackled together in an integrated way. It is the first time that a Government have recognised the critical importance of co-ordinating and dealing together with approaches from Europe, central Government, the region, local authorities and communities in the locality.
The real question is how effective the approach has been. During the past year, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee has looked at what has been achieved and at the problems, and has tried to suggest how matters might be improved.
Liverpool is already benefiting from that approach. Unemployment in my constituency—the area with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country—has fallen by more than one third since the general election and is rapidly improving. There is new confidence and investment. Anyone who walks around Liverpool cannot fail but see the increased amount of development, construction work and activity and feel the buzz of the new confidence that resonates around the city.
Liverpool Vision—the first urban regeneration company to be set up after the Rogers report—is starting its vital work in the city. The company is working hard with the newly formed regional development agency—which the Opposition tell us they would abolish, if they have the opportunity to do so—Liverpool city council, English Partnerships and a wide range of private sector partners. It offers Liverpool a unique opportunity for urban renaissance by investing in the city centre and developing it as a spearhead of growth. The company deserves support. It will be successful if it is able to call on funding and support from all the areas that I mentioned—Europe, the Government, the region and the locality—to enable it to fulfil its major challenge.
The importance of businesses in our economy—specifically in Liverpool's economy—has been recognised. Much of that is due to the pioneering work of the Mersey side special investment fund, set up in 1996 with greatly valued objective 1 European funding, Government funding through the single regeneration budget and private sector investment. Since then, the MSIF has generated investment of more than £84 million for small and medium-sized enterprises, supporting about 4,800 jobs.
Following that lead, the North West development agency is promoting its venture capital fund. I very much welcome the Government's initiative in setting up the Phoenix fund and announcing incentives in the pre-Budget report to back inner city enterprise, providing community-based funds to support businesses in inner cities throughout the country—specifically in Liverpool, I hope.
The knowledge economy is being promoted. After the disappointing decision about Daresbury, major efforts are being made and I hope that regional projects of great economic and scientific importance—including, among others, Liverpool university's centre for accelerator science, imaging and medicine project, and John Moores university's proposals for the development of telescope technologies—will go ahead, and will receive support from the north-west science committee, which is currently considering them.
The North West development agency and English Partnerships are certainly showing the importance of land assembly in promoting brownfield development. The additional funding for RDAs by the Government, together with the increased flexibility in its use, will enable them to become more important in supporting businesses, the economy and society.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the ending of the partnership investment


programme, set against the extra money that has been made available for the RDAs, sets £3 billion alongside £600 million? That is the scale—the order of magnitude—of the hole that has been punched in urban regeneration by the effect of the ruling of the European Commission.

Mrs. Ellman: I accept that the increased funding and flexibility provided to RDAs by the Government should be used to increase the capacity of the agencies. I am extremely unhappy at the prospect that it might be seen as a complete replacement for the previous private sector funding. I shall return to that subject later in my speech.
Major issues must be addressed—but in the context of the progress and improvement that we are experiencing in my constituency, in the north-west and throughout the country. I agree with hon. Members who point out that national, regional and local initiatives must be more effectively co-ordinated. There are a plethora of initiatives; each is much to be welcomed in its own right, but there must be much more national, regional and local coherence. More explicit consideration should be given to the local and regional implications of national decisions. A directly elected north-west assembly working with strengthened local government would be one step in that direction. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions tell us how such issues might be dealt with in the interim before such an assembly is set up?
In his important comments at the opening of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to one of the other vital issues that must be resolved—the problem of the removal of gap funding. The change in the interpretation by the European Commission of state aid poses a major problem for regeneration—certainly in my constituency and, I suspect, in many areas.
The ruling on the removal of gap funding, already decided by the Commission, has had an important and damaging impact on my constituency. Important developments in Liverpool, such as those in Concert square, Queens square and Speke-Garston, were dependent on gap funding in the past. I am extremely concerned as to what its removal might mean for the future. I do not accept that the increased funding for the RDAs—welcome as it is—will provide a complete replacement for gap funding. Will my right hon. Friend give us information on the Government's efforts to bridge that gap?
The situation is even more serious. The principles on the interpretation of state aid adopted by the Competition Directorate of the European Commission have been extended and are being applied to structural funding. I understand that, under the objective 1 programme currently being considered for Merseyside, about 14 projects specifically designed for Liverpool have been referred to the state aid unit of the Department of Trade and Industry. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether that is correct? Can she tell us what is happening?
I am extremely anxious, because those projects include an important proposed development for my constituency and for the inner city—a business centre in Toxteth. That development has been able to attract essential private sector investment that had been lacking in the past.

The private sector is willing to invest, yet I understand that that project and others are being closely scrutinised by the state aid unit because of concern about EU rulings on state aid. The matter is extremely important. Other projects are also involved—the north Liverpool resource centre and the Scotland road gateway. Will the Government resolve the matter with great urgency?
Hon. Members have referred to the problem of derelict property in regeneration. That is of special importance in my constituency. I praise the Liverpool Echo for its "Stop the Rot" campaign, which has highlighted that critical problem in Liverpool, although there are wider ramifications. What progress has been made on changing the compulsory purchase order regime?
Other bodies also have responsibilities—including local authorities, which are responsible for addressing issues of immediate concern. I call on the property-owning company, Frenson, to face up to its public responsibilities in the Ropewalks area of the city centre. Frenson is sitting on property, allowing it to rot. When it is let to tenants, rents are forced up wholly unacceptably. It is not good enough to leave listed properties in Seel street, listed merchants' houses in Duke street and the Scandinavian hotel to decline. I call on Frenson to face up to its public responsibilities and to assist in the regeneration of Liverpool, not to impede it.
I have drawn attention to several national and local issues. I am convinced that the Government's comprehensive approach to regeneration is right and that the creation of regional development agencies and the institution of regional chambers and regional assemblies is the right way to proceed, but greater focus is needed. I ask the Minister to address those issues nationally and specifically in terms of Liverpool and the north-west.

8 pm

Mr. David Curry: I am sorry that I begin my remarks with a small quarrel with an hon. Member with whom I normally agree and for whom I have great respect. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made remarks about Commissioner Mario Monti. The decision that he took was wrong and damaging. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the consequences, but I do not think that describing him as evil or somehow power crazed helps the argument. We accord courtesies to colleagues in the House, and it is sensible to do so to people outside as well. No doubt, I shall be labelled as flying my frightful Europhiliac flag yet again, but in the circumstances I will plead guilty.
Regeneration policy has tended to oscillate over the years. I shall not talk about particular cases; my constituency is very much a rural one, but I had responsibility for such matters for four years and the emphasis was on physical regeneration, then on social regeneration and then city challenge and the single regeneration budget. The emphasis is now on social exclusion, and the policy is beginning to come together in the realisation that physical regeneration must go hand in hand with trying to help communities in a more personal sense. As a result, the policy tends to be bitty; it tends to be a bottom-up policy and is difficult to describe in broad, sweeping terms, but we have all learned the lesson that regeneration policies have to be built on a neighbourhood basis. The time is long past when politicians could drop strategies on to communities in the hope that they would work.
We have accepted that design is important. The key to regeneration is creating a critical mass in compact, socially mixed neighbourhoods with a mixture of uses, so that a market is created for public and private services. If no market place is created—in other words, if there is no mass of people who demand the schools, who can serve on public transport and who need the local barber's shop and betting shop—we will not produce those polycentric cities that actually work. It would do no harm to go back and read Jane Jacob's book, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", which shows what went wrong when the mixed uses and all the informal relationships that existed in neighbours gave way to monochromatic uses.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I am following my right hon. Friend's remarks with my customary interest; he is a man of fertile mind and interesting thought. He knows France far better than I do, and various quarters are dedicated to particular activities in the planning of French cities. How does he reconcile that policy, which clearly works, with what he is saying about multiple-use areas?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend would find that many French cities have a zone industrielle on their edge, and people commute out to them. The difference between many British and French cities is that many people live on top of the activities in the cities themselves and the densities of the cities is much greater He would also find that street markets are much more frequent and used by all sorts of people, which makes French cities function better. However, the French countryside is a catastrophe because anyone who is anybody has gone to the cities. That is the fault of Louis XIV. We could have a long dissertation on the consequences of Louis XIV on French rural decay, which still continues today.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comment that we cannot impose solutions on neighbourhoods. Solutions must come from neighbourhoods. It is fashionable to say that politicians cannot impose such things, but does he agree that politicians have a clear role because, in areas of urban blight, communities often have low morale and believe that they cannot contribute to their own regeneration and that it is important that politicians show them leadership to get them to the point where they can contribute to their regeneration?

Mr. Curry: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must not fall into believing the cheerful myth that suggests that regeneration is waiting to happen in every neighbourhood and that if people are given the tools, by gosh, they will be on their way. Some neighbourhoods are pretty grim for all sorts of reasons, and people are very incompetent in those neighbourhoods. That can be seen in the some schools' catchment areas, which I wish to deal with in a moment. Politicians have a job to do; they must try to ensure that people can use the instruments of help that they devise in a way that lasts and creates a cycle of improvement. That is not impossible.
The White Paper and the Pre-Budget statement must be viewed in that context. The White Paper was written by this Government, so it is windy and wordy and there is no grand sweep of ideas. The Minister for Housing and

Planning has just entered the Chamber, and he may have had a hand in it because his housing Green Paper, which suffered from similar problems, will have given him good practice. However, that is not necessary a failing; there is much that is welcome, such as the VAT changes for residential conversions, although that is applicable universally and is not specific to inner cities. It could be applied in the smallest village in my constituency, were it relevant. The changed tax treatment for contaminated land is welcome and overdue. The smaller incentives on stamp duty and the 100 per cent. capital allowances to create flats over shops are useful, small changes.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said, we still await two key policies—first, the codification and reform on the law compulsory purchase, which will facilitate land assembly. It would be interesting to know whether the DETR has drawn any conclusion from the recent court case that set the Secretary of State's planning powers against the European convention on human rights and threw into doubt the way in which that system operates. Clearly, that will need consideration. Secondly, we await the revision of planning policy guidance 1—the book of Genesis of the planning system that sets the tone for the way in which planning proceeds. To mention what is welcome in the urban White Paper highlights how much policy is still tentative and timid.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the funding problem. As I have said, I agree with his condemnation of the decision that was taken. The RDAs can now invest directly, but that does not provide the answer because it does not produce the leverage, as the hon. Member for Riverside has said. We must be careful that the RDAs do not have too many functions placed on them, otherwise the next phase will simply involve differentiating those functions. I should be interested to know how many of the skilled staff of English Partnerships have gone into the RDAs and how many of them have taken flight into the private sector.
The White Paper does not address the long-term funding issues of the inner city programmes and it fails properly to tackle the perverse workings of the tax system. I do not blame the DETR; it had a noble battle with the Treasury—but a few months from the election, it lost. That is not surprising; we have all had battles with the Treasury, and most of us have lost them. That is the nature of political geometry. However, we have ended up with half a carrot and no stick. Tax on renovation has not been equalised. It would have been sensible to put a levy on greenfield development and 17.5 per cent. VAT is still paid on conversion between uses. The conversion of an inner-city office block into accommodation still attracts 17.5 per cent. VAT. The Government have shown that they have spotted the problem, and have nibbled at a bit of the solution, but there is still some distance to travel.
There is of course a vast land bank of greenfield sites ready for development. The south-east regional planning committee reckons that sites capable of taking almost 225,000 homes have already been earmarked in the south-east. That is a different debate and those of us who represent Yorkshire constituencies ought to be somewhat tentative before we venture into that minefield.
There are still problems with contaminated land. The tax treatment proposed in the Chancellor's statement is welcome, but there are still problems relating to regimes for waste and for water, which are not always working


and pulling in the same direction. The Government need to consider such matters in the round if they are to address the complex disincentive that still operates for development on some contaminated land.
To turn to a broader issue, there is a lack of joined-up government. I see in the DETR annual report a chapter picturesquely entitled:
The Department's Role in 'Joined-Up' Government,
and some very endearing pictures of the ministerial team. However, the joining up between Departments is not immediately apparent. I am glad that the Minister for Housing and Planning is present. He has been busy proposing in his Green Paper rent increases under the formula of the retail prices index plus 0 per cent., which would have shot to pieces many of the development plans of registered social landlords at the time we were being told how important it was that more people lived in inner cities. I see that he has pulled back to a formula of RPI plus 0.5 per cent., which at least shows that he has done some listening.
I turn to the transfer programme. I agree with the Minister that transfer is a central issue. We should not allow local authorities arm's-length companies. They are, on the whole, for rather dismal local authorities that cannot hack it, and we should not give such authorities a way out. However, we need a wider menu.
I want to know the Government's view on proposals for securitisation. It is a way of raising money directly against the rent stream, cutting out the landlord. It is made difficult owing to section 47 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which stipulates that all a local authority's liabilities must be charged against all its assets. Therefore, a council cannot provide security in favour of a particular lender. The Government could help in the short term by amending the 1995 European system of accounts rules. I would be interested to know whether the Government would like to consider securitisation as one part of the menu of getting to grips with the regeneration of housing.
We have all had problems with binding education to the regeneration process. I would have made the same reproach of the Conservative Government because the Department of Education was not even represented in the regional offices. There are many specific initiatives on education, but nobody has successfully married it to wider regeneration issues.
Clearly, DETR Front Benchers are reading their annual report for the first time, since they are entranced by their own photographs in it. I am glad to have been the bearer of such happy tidings. I hope that the cult of personality will not strike too deeply. The pictures are very small, but Ministers can always live in hope.
Many inner city schools with multi-ethnic catchment areas are often characterised by violence against children, parents and teachers. There is a great deal of abuse, much deprivation and enormous disintegration of society in such schools. The kids often do not know where they are going home of a night, and the teachers do not know whether the kids have come to school on a breakfast in the morning. I have never thought of free school meals as a satisfactory indicator of deprivation, but some such schools have a very high proportion of children eating free school meals.
The problem is that, often, parents are incompetent in many ways. Any policy based on an educational strategy that assumes a competent and caring parental force must come to terms with some reality.

Mr. John M. Taylor: In striking such a sound chord, has my right hon. Friend ever given thought to who teaches parenthood? Is it possible?

Mr. Curry: Parenthood must mainly be taught by example, which is why I agree with the Government that the traditional nuclear family appears to represent the best formula for bringing up children—that is not to deny that people who are not part of such a family are perfectly able to bring up successful children.
We should be careful before we load schools up with too many civic responsibilities. Our job as a nation is to make them competitive. If schools are competitive, they are likely to be more competent in dealing with civic responsibilities. If one wants someone to do a job in society, one on the whole finds that somebody who is busy tends to do the job more willingly.
It is impossible to exaggerate the extent to which head teachers of some inner city schools live in dread of losing the three or four middle-class parents whose children make the difference between standard assessment test results that are verging on respectability and those that look catastrophic. The battle that goes on to try to ensure that a few middle-class parents hang on in there and do not send their kids elsewhere is a noble one. It is a measure of the difficulty of the circumstances.
I would like head teachers to be given more power to fire poor quality teaching staff—such as the Monday-to-Friday brigade who have got used to survival as the main essence of the week—and to reward quality staff. I find it inconceivable that people who teach in inner city schools are on the same pay scales as those in the leafy suburbs. Compared with the problems encountered day after day by some teachers in the inner cities, those in the suburbs do not know that they are born.
I would like there to be more support from local education authorities. Some, such as Lambeth, do not even provide supply staff. So schools must go to private sector organisations for supply staff, at great daily cost, in order to replace teachers who are on holiday or taking maternity leave. As a consequence, classes can have three or four teachers in a year.

Dr. Ladyman: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on LEAs that make the system even worse by introducing selective education and, in my constituency, thereby creating sink schools that are guaranteed to be in the bottom 25 for GCSE results?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has asked that question of the wrong Conservative Member. He will recall that we had a ballot in Ripon. We won it because the argument was not between the grammar school and the city school. They were on the same side. The argument was about how we enhanced education in the city school in partnership. It has now become a technology college, its examination results are improving and it has demonstrated, under a committed head teacher—the alpha and the omega of real education—that it can haul itself into contention as a competitive school.


I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman holds his views firmly, but we just happened to win the ballot 2:1 because we sought not to divide but to unite people.
I would like a primary school head teacher to be in charge of two or three schools. Much depends on building blocks, structures and being able to ensure that the school knows what it is seeking to do daily. Given the shortage of staff in inner city schools, there is something to commend the most able teachers who want to continue working with children, not undertaking advisory functions but remaining in schools and assuming wider responsibility.
There should perhaps be a link between the secondary school and primary schools. I am amazed by how many secondary schools appear to have no contact with the primary schools before the new kids walk through the main gate on the day they begin secondary education—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the debate. I have been generous in allowing him some comment on education, but we must now return to the subject of the motion.

Mr. Curry: I was anxious to demonstrate where the joined-upness was not joining up. I thought that more joined-upness would work well in education. Mercifully, I am coming to end of my remarks on that subject. I leave with the Minister the need to bind education into the regeneration process. Today's children are the citizens of the next generation, to whom we are trying to give competences. They are the people whom we shall ask to provide leadership in the community. If we cannot provide them with the education that they need, they will not be able to do that job.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I am not sure where the right hon. Gentleman's nearest education action zone is, but I recommend the one in Plymouth, which is working very hard with the regeneration projects to ensure that the young citizens of the town are able to play their part in a regenerated Plymouth of 2020.

Mr. Curry: My nearest education action zone is probably in Bradford. However, there are not many zones and the head teachers in charge of them are often paid miserably too little for the responsibilities that they take on. Madam Deputy Speaker would no doubt reproach me if I pursued that point, so I shall resist the temptation to be diverted again.
The White Paper is welcome and the beginnings of a strategy are emerging through the mist. However, we need to see the structures of that strategy more clearly. Some of the issues that have been sketched in should be more positively addressed. In particular, I refer to the issues that relate to fiscal incentives and that are essential to pulling in private sector involvement.
We have seen the emergence of an almost consensual approach to regeneration. The Labour Government have built on the programme that was put in place by the previous Administration.

Ms Atherton: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman can suggest that there is a consensus on

regeneration, given the Conservative party's policy of abandoning regional development agencies and their budgets just as they are getting into their stride.

Mr. Curry: To regard regeneration as synonymous with the regional development agencies seems to be a curious piece of intellectual gymnastics. The Conservative party's policy is interesting because it represents examining the most successful programmes that were carried out previously and attempting to bring elements, such as effective policing and effective education, into the strategy. The hon. Lady might not like that, but the intellectual undertow of that policy is not greatly different from the approach taken by the Government. There is a difference of view about mechanisms and delivery vehicles, but there is no philosophical divide between what we are trying to do, what this Government have done and what we did previously.
I rejoice in the continuity in the programme. We are trying to build communities even though we should use that phrase with hesitation, because building communities is much easier said than done. If there is continuity of programme and an element of planning, and if people feel that they can be adventurous and take risks, we might all be more successful in what we universally wish to achieve in our great inner cities.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: May I ask for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start my speech? I wish to express my deepest sympathies to the family of Police Constable Jon Odell, who was killed while on duty in Margate last night by a hit-and-run driver. Although Margate is in North Thanet, the Thanet police force serves both the North Thanet and the South Thanet constituencies very well. The anger and distress at what has happened will unite the whole of Thanet.
I want to speak not only because I served on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs when it discussed what it wanted in the urban White Paper and when it produced its report on gap funding, but also because as a Member of Parliament representing Thanet and, before that, as a councillor, I have had experience of regeneration.
Thanet is in east Kent; many people think that means that it is in the leafy suburbs in a wealthy part of the United Kingdom. In reality, Thanet is among the top six areas of England for unemployment and has one of the lowest wage rates in the whole country. That is evidenced by the per capita take-up rate for housing benefit in Thanet, which is usually the highest in the country. More than 40 per cent. of the work force in Thanet are unskilled. Those problems are recognised by the fact that we have assisted area status at tier 2 and objective 2 funding from the European Union. Despite that assistance, regenerating Thanet is extremely difficult for several very practical reasons. In a capitalist economy, the practical reasons usually relate to the way in which the figures add up, so I shall give the House some practical examples of those figures.
First, however, I shall comment briefly on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Perhaps I would not go as far as him in the description of Commissioner Monti. Commissioner Monti is probably more bonkers than bolshy, and more


mad and misguided than malign. However, on the issue of the partnership investment programme, he is clearly wrong. I shall try to illustrate my view with a practical example.
Three business parks have been created in Thanet, because we need to attract new industry and investment to the area to deal with our high unemployment. We were able to provide services to two of those parks by using funding that came to us from the single regeneration budget and objective 2. The parks are in private hands and building a factory on one of them costs some £50 to £56 a square foot. I have checked those figures, and they are very competitive for the south-east. Ashford is 40 minutes down the road, and building a factory there also costs £56 a square foot.
The difference is that, once one has paid £56 a square foot and taken occupation of the premises in Thanet, they are worth about £30 a square foot. That is how much one would receive from selling them. However, if one sold the premises in Ashford, one would receive very close to the £56 a square foot that one paid for them. Even if we assume that property inflation is about 4 per cent. a year, it would take a considerable time before the factory in Thanet was worth what one paid for it.
To deal with that problem, help is provided through tier 2 assisted area funding. That can work out at 20 per cent. of capital cost. However, even allowing for a 20 per cent. grant towards the capital cost of building the factory, it would still take 10 years of 4 per cent. per annum price inflation on the value of the property to get back to the discounted value of the factory that one had just bought.
That does not mean that we cannot attract new factories and new investors to Thanet; it means that it is very difficult to do so. Investors have usually to come to Thanet for something else that it can offer: our available work force. Thanet recently attracted a prestigious Spanish car component company, Grupo Antolin. One reason why the company came to Thanet, despite the fact that the figures that I quoted are perhaps working against it, is that it is looking to train its future work force from among our unskilled and semi-skilled workers, who are anxious to get back into work. It was therefore attracted by the work force that Thanet offered rather than by our ability to put together an interesting financial package. However, such companies are few and far between.
Time and again, we lose investors to Ashford and other areas in Kent. When I knock on companies' doors and ask why they decided not to invest in Thanet, they say, "The local council was great; the business parks were great; the quality of life that you were offering was great; but the figures simply don't add up." That is where the partnership investment programme could have stepped in. It could have provided the difference between the price that people have to pay to build their factory and the actual value of that factory. By taking away that plank, Commissioner Monti has made it extremely difficult for us to continue the regeneration of Thanet. I gave the example of a factory, but the principle is the same for areas that we are trying to regenerate with leisure attractions, housing developments and all the other forms of development that Thanet needs if it is to recover.
The European Commission rules say that state aid is inappropriate if it distorts the marketplace. They go on to say that derogations might be possible if compatible with

the common market, but that aid schemes that are not compatible with those derogations are illegal. That is why the Commission has said that the partnership investment programme is illegal. To my mind, however, it has failed to consider that the first basic clause in the rules is that the scheme is illegal if it distorts the marketplace. If it does not, why would the Commission even look at whether it is compatible with the derogations? That is the mistake that Commissioner Monti has made.
If we give money to a regional development agency and ask it to carry out development, it may build a factory in a business park; but to sell that factory at market value, it has to make a loss. The difference between the price for which the agency builds the factory and the price at which it sells will be exactly the same amount, to the penny, as the gap funding that would have been provided through the partnership investment programme. By definition, the amounts are identical. The factory owner buys the property at the market rate in both cases, so there is no distortion of the marketplace in either scheme and no difference in the funding that is provided. The only difference is that, without the partnership investment programme, the publicly accountable RDAs have to do the development. As they do not have the necessary staff and expertise at present, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, their task is very difficult.
I turn now to housing. I could take you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Ramsgate, the town in which I live, and I am willing to bet that with very little effort I could find 50 empty properties that are being allowed to become derelict, all of them in private hands.
The urban taskforce report says that the Government
should introduce new measures to encourage the restoration and use of historic buildings left empty by their owners. These should include revised planning guidance … inclusion of heritage issues in regional economic strategies, a review of building regulations and an end to the business rate exemptions on empty listed buildings.
The Government's response did not go nearly so far. They simply said that they
will consider these issues in the light of the forthcoming report from English Heritage on the historic environment.
I am a new Labour politician, and I do not deal in the language of nationalisation without compensation, but empty properties that are unpleasant to look at and which drag my town down—destroying the quality of life for the people who live there and lowering the value of surrounding properties—make me very angry. We should stop messing around, give local authorities the power of compulsory purchase over such properties as quickly as possible and put them into the hands of people who will redevelop them. When we consider what compensation we should provide for those properties, we should ask ourselves what income they are generating for their owners and how much it would cost to capitalise that income. If a property is empty, it earns its owner nothing, and the local authority should take possession at no cost.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may find me an extraordinarily unlikely ally, and may ask himself whether he has it right after all. Does he agree that, in addition to compulsory purchase—I am not quite sure


about at no price—it would be constructive for the local authority to be able to grant me re or less omnibus planning permission and then auction the property?

Dr. Ladyman: I completely a free with the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased that I haw an ally on the other side of the House. I am not quite as Stalinist as I thought I was on the issue.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I offer the hon. Gentleman the support of the Opposition Front Bench as well. It is a waste, whether the properties are owned by the local authority, by registered social landlords or privately, as most of them are. Would he extend the premise to council-owned properties that lie unoccupied and dormant for whatever period, and force authorities to take them over and give them especially to young couples who need to get on the housing ladder, perhaps with homesteading grants?

Dr. Ladyman: I would. I am happy to say that local authorities that neglect their housing stock should answer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for why they are doing that. They should have to put in place a strategy for dealing with the problem as expeditiously as possible. If they are not capable of doing that, somebody else should be found who is.

Mr. Don Foster: May I embarrass the hon. Gentleman still further by offering full support from the Liberal Democrats for his proposition? However, like the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I am not entirely convinced by a no-cost approach. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to go further, bearing in mind the scandal that there are 750,000 empty homes and 150,000 homeless households? Something must be done Is he prepared to go as far as equalisation of value added tax for renovation, and reducing it to a much lower level? That, too, would help.

Dr. Ladyman: I agree. There should be a clear tax advantage in regenerating existing properties and developing brownfield sites. I think that I signed an early-day motion to that effect.
Now that we have established cross-party consensus, we have a perfect opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers to leap to their feet to announce that they will introduce strong powers for local authorities to engage in the compulsory purchase of empty properties.
I agree with something else that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said earlier. He talked about the amount of council officer time that has to be spent on preparing bids, working through regeneration programmes and other administrative work. It takes a significant amount of councils' time, and the councils tend to be the poorest and the least able to afford the quality of officers that are needed to generate the work. Until programmes are under way, whether they are assisted area, single regeneration budget or objective 2 programmes, and until it is possible to claim back the percentage that will cover administrative costs, it is difficult to get officers in place to design the projects in the first place. It would help councils that are becoming regeneration areas for the first time to receive some seedcorn to help them set up the necessary departments before they can begin claiming back money.
Occasionally, I have found English Partnerships too rigid with its policy of being the funder of last resort. It was often difficult to get an exciting project started until contracts could be signed. English Partnerships would not sign the contracts because it was always hoping that a private individual would step in. As a result, programmes have often been delayed and thereafter fallen through. The Government should consider that.
I am immensely proud of being involved in the regeneration of Thanet. It has given me much satisfaction and a great deal has been achieved. The seafront has been modernised and we have started to recover some streets to regenerate them. We have three business parks and we have got businesses into them. Thanks to the Labour council donating land and the Labour Government donating money, we have our own university campus in Thanet, which is the greatest achievement that any politician has been able to announce for Thanet for a generation. We can succeed, but we would do so much better if obstacles were not put in our way. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to address these issues this evening and when considering how the White Paper will be implemented in the coming years.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Urban regeneration and preservation of the countryside are two sides of the same coin. Both those who live in towns and those who live in the country want their green fields preserved, and everyone wants more housing. We can have both, as long as we ensure that we build primarily in built-up areas or on built-up land, not on green fields. That will be a major concern of the public in the coming months, and it will be a major issue in the coming election.
I draw the attention of the House to four very recent events that have a bearing on those issues. The first occurred yesterday, when the Minister for Housing and Planning sneaked out in a written answer the figures for the number of houses to be built in the south-east by the Government. He tried to give the impression that the target number had been reduced. In fact, the target is higher than that proposed by the south-east regional planning committee—39,000, instead of 33,000. The target is only for five years. The Government propose then to raise the level to 43,000 houses a year, or possibly even higher. That is a fudge to get the Government through the election next May. They hope that they can obscure the burden that they are imposing with the demand for new houses in the south-east.
The second event occurred today, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the leader of the Conservative party, launched the Conservative campaign to save our green fields. He launched it, I am happy to say, in Hertfordshire, on a piece of greenbelt land threatened by planning development under this Government.
The campaign proclaims my party's commitment to protect green fields and to promote urban regeneration. It spells out our policies and highlights the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties' hypocrisy on the matter. They say one thing, but they do another—[Interruption.] As I think the Minister for Housing and Planning is saying, no doubt echoing the words of his boss, the green belt is a Labour achievement and the Government are building on it.

Mr. Andrew Love: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. After the consensus of the past hour, I am pleased that we are back to good old-fashioned party politics. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the net impact of what he suggests will be higher house prices, when they are already going through the roof, and more homelessness in the south-east?

Mr. Lilley: I am saying that house building should be focused on the already built-up areas. I am simply pointing out what the Government are doing, as opposed to what they are saying, and the discrepancy between the two. The hon. Gentleman is rather more open than those on his Front Bench, and I give him credit for that.
The third event to which I draw the attention of the House is occurring simultaneously with this debate. It illustrates the Government's attempt to do one thing and say another, and the problems that are caused as a result. While we are engaged in the debate in the House, the North Hertfordshire district council in my constituency is considering advice from its officers to withdraw its local district structure plan. That advice is based on legal opinion delivered to the council by Queen's Counsel, who has pointed out that the Government's own policy planning guidance note 3 requires the council to do that. He spelled out the fact that the Government have created a dilemma for local authorities. The origins of that dilemma lie in an earlier period when Hertfordshire county council—under the control of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, with a majority of one—steamrollered through a proposal to build 10,000 houses on greenbelt land west of Stevenage.
The council did that using an undemocratic procedure, which prevented the full council from voting on the issue. Only 14 councillors—Liberal Democrat and Labour, of course—voted for the measure. The Conservatives tried to take the issue in full council, and a majority of councillors voted to do so, but the standing orders were then changed so that abstentions counted as votes against taking the matter to full council. By that undemocratic procedure, the measure was steamrollered through.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Conservative party came to my constituency to highlight the proposal, because it was the biggest incursion into the green belt ever approved by the Secretary of State, who is not in the House today. The resulting uproar at what the Government were authorising, and at the precedent that it would create throughout the country—planning proceeds by precedent, after all—led the Secretary of State to come to the House in a panic with a proposal to try to cover up what the Government were doing and to pretend that they were changing direction. As a result of that, they introduced the new planning policy guidance.
The Secretary of State said that the Government would never in future authorise massive incursions into the green belt or on green land, but would instead give priority to development on brown fields. I said that, if the Government were genuine about that, I would salute what they were doing.

Dr. Ladyman: Given that the policy that the right hon. Gentleman espouses would dramatically accelerate the boom in house prices in the south-east, including Hertfordshire, and that the Government of whom he was

a member scrapped housing allowances for key workers such as the police, v here would the key workers live if his policies were implemented in a Tory south-east?

Mr. Lilley: They would live in houses that were not built on the green belt. That is my proposal. They would live in houses built on brown land, or, if there had to be any incursion into greenfield land, it should be greenfield land that is not green belt.
The Government also gave the impression that that was to be their priority when they introduced the planning policy guidance. Meanwhile, in the small print, they were still pressing ahead with concreting over Hertfordshire and other areas. They intended that those proposals should still go ahead. However, they did not realise that they had launched a torpedo that would threaten to sink their proposals to build t rose massive developments west of Stevenage and elsewhere. It now appears, from the legal advice of Mr. Christopher Lockhart-Mummery, QC, that that is just what they have done.
I wrote to the Minister and received a reply from him. Mr. Lockhart-Mummery considered that reply and wrote:
I find it hard to accept some of the logic in the letter to Peter Lilley MP from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the DETR.
He went on to say that that reply from the Minister was the "antithesis" of what PPG3 was seeking, and that it was "illogical". He also said:
The course suggested in the Minister's letter cannot be appropriate.
In short, the Government are on a course of action that runs contrary to the law and to the legally binding advice that they have set out. I hope that North Hertfordshire district council will take a decision tonight that will expose the contradiction between the Government's proclaimed policies and their actions on the ground.
A fourth, very sad event that was announced last week—a tragedy to many local people—was the closure of the Vauxhall plant at Luton, just adjacent to my constituency. If there is no possibility of rescinding that decision, the priority must be streamlining planning processes on the site to ensure that the development of new business is as rapid as possible. I was glad that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry responded positively when I put that proposal to him. I hope that he has taken it up with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and that the Department will include in the remit of the taskforce that is considering the Vauxhall works the question of whether it can streamline the process to ensure the rapid development of new businesses on the site. The site is massive, and if there is any spare land after the first priority of developing new businesses is met, it should be available for housing, which could further remove the need for the development that is proposed only a few miles away, west of Stevenage.
Those four major recent events demonstrate the importance of the issues that we are discussing. They show that the Government are not doing what they are purporting to do, and also demonstrate that the Conservative party is probably speaking for the bulk of people in towns and rural areas when it calls both for more development—focused, above all, on brownfield land and developed areas—and the regeneration of city centres. We would not, as the Government have done, authorise the largest incursion of building on the green belt ever authorised by a Government in living memory.

Mr. Hilary Benn: In one sense, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), as I want to devote most of my remarks to the issue of the development of brownfield land.
However, first I want to respond to a comment about neighbourhood renewal made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is not in his place at the moment. From my experience, I believe strongly that renewal is about practical action. We must recognise that the Government deserve credit for the initiatives that they have begun. I shall mention two that impact particularly on my constituency, one of which is the neighbourhood warden scheme, to which I referred last week in a debate on the Gracious Speech. The other is excellence in cities. Those are two examples of ways in which money is being targeted specifically on areas on social disadvantage. Indeed, for the first time in 20 years that I can recollect, excellence in cities has meant that schools in inner-city urban areas, which face the biggest challenge, have received additional funds because of that fact.
On the issue of the single regeneration budget and potential underspend, one reason why it takes time to spend money wisely is that, if we are serious about asking people in the local community what they want, it takes time. It is easy to rush ahead and say that we have already got a plan at the centre, but if we ask people what they want, that takes time. On the issue of initiatives, the Government's approach clearly has the advantage of allowing resources to be targeted and encouraging new initiatives. The disadvantage is that it is a challenge to join up all of those.
I hope that, in time, as we learn from the experience of the initiatives, we will allow local authorities, especially the strategic partnerships that we are now encouraging, to come to the Government and say, "We want to achieve the same objectives as you. We have some ideas about ways in which we might be able to combine the pots of money that you have made available to achieve those objectives and, in effect, we want to bid to take on those programmes and join them together it ways that make the most sense on the ground." In doing so, we could focus more on the outcomes that we want to achieve, rather than the outputs.
I wanted principally to address what I regard as the most serious problem facing our inner cities prospects for regeneration, especially on brownfield land: the decision of the EU Commission, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who chairs the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It strikes me as deeply ironic that, between the publication of Lord Rogers' visionary report on our cities and the Government's White Paper earlier this year, the EU Commission should have taken a decision that does more to threaten successful urban regeneration than anything else.
All hon. Members understand why gap funding developed. It did so for the simple reason that the free market works well in some places, but not in others. Where it does not work well, it fails to provide for wider social and economic need and intervention is required. Gap funding was created because of the failure of the free market, and it has now been banned because of the philosophy of the free market. We know how

successful it has been. Indeed, it is an example of a public-private partnership of which every hon. Member is strongly in favour. One cannot say that about all forms of PPP.
The partnership investment programme made possible the development of the waterfront in Leeds. In the past 15 years, the decaying mill buildings that lined the river like spectres from Leeds' industrial past have been transformed into living buildings containing homes and offices. The Victoria quays scheme was the first such development and was the catalyst for the others. Anybody who remembers the Leeds riverside of old and who visits now is amazed. It is estimated that the riverside regeneration and its knock-on effect have created some 15,000 jobs in the inner city. That is what I call urban regeneration. The development is a success that makes it all the more inexplicable that the source of practical support that made it possible is being brought to an end.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has described some good developments on the riverside in his constituency. Does he believe that there might be something to learn from the London docklands experience, which suggests that it is necessary for the local planning authority to be pretty broad minded and willing to say yes?

Mr. Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In a moment, I shall comment on the success of Leeds city council in taking precisely the approach that he describes.
In May, members of the Environment Sub-Committee met European Commission representatives in Brussels. It was clear that the Commission had not understood the implications of the decision that it took when it took that decision. However, we left it in no doubt of the consequences, and others—especially my right hon. Friend the Minister—have done the same. The Commission has also come to realise that one of the reasons why it did not understand what it was doing was that the United Kingdom has evolved a very different system for dealing with regeneration. Our system principally involves partnership between the public and private sectors, while the rest of Europe has a much greater reliance on public development, partly because so many of its city centres are publicly owned.
I realise that the Commission is responsible under the treaties to act as guardian of the rules. It is, however, worth reminding ourselves precisely of what article 92(1) of the treaty of Rome says. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to the thrust of that article, but the crucial wording states that
any aid granted by a Member State … which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between the Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
The words
in so far as it affects trade between the Member States
are crucial to the argument.
Not for want of a lot of trying, I cannot fathom how the Commission has reached its decision. It seemed to have three concerns: first, that a windfall payment could be made to the owner of land; secondly, that a subsidy could be provided to a developer; and thirdly, that a subsidy could be given to the organisation that rented the new premises. Let us consider those concerns in turn. First, the Sub-Committee asked about windfall. The Commission gave


one example involving a car manufacturer, and we were told that a complaint had been made. If that happened, why did not the Commission use its powers to say that the project could not go ahead? Secondly, subsidies are the point of gap funding. Local authorities will sometimes have to deal with a single developer that owns the land. If the problem is that developers should have an equal chance to compete, why cannot the Commission deal with the matter under its public procurement rules?
Thirdly, I do not understand the Commission's concern about potential subsidy to the end user. Much of the riverside development in Leeds has consisted of flats. Unless I have missed something, a flat cannot be regarded as a tradeable commodity. A person cannot pick up a flat from Holbeck, put it down in Hamburg and say that he or she has traded it. The suggestion is nonsense. Such events would not occur, any more than the head of a company that is occupying business or retail space in Milan would suddenly say, "Gosh, cheaper premises are available for rent in the centre of Leeds and we'll move the whole business, lock, stock and barrel." It simply will not happen. An ideological sledgehammer has been used to crack the hard nut of trying to regenerate our inner-city areas and it has smashed it to pieces.
I shall give three quick examples of what is now at risk in the centre of Leeds. In Leeds, we feel strongly about the matter for the reasons to which I have referred. The city council, together with business through the Leeds initiative, has successfully regenerated the city, although Leeds is the first to acknowledge that parts of the city and large parts of my constituency have not benefited from that regeneration.
There is a great contrast between the successful and unsuccessful parts of Leeds. The best measure of that is relative house prices—the most sensitive index that we have developed as a society for measuring the quality of life in the areas in which we choose to live. Two weeks ago, the Yorkshire Evening Post highlighted the difference between a £725,000 penthouse flat that was for sale in the centre of Leeds and a four-bedroom house with front and back gardens that was on sale for £7,250, which will come as something of a shock to hon. Members who represent seats in the south-east.
The first thing at risk is Holbeck urban village—50 acres of old mills and factory buildings, 17 of which are listed. They are of great historical significance and hold the key to regenerating an area between the centre of the city and Holbeck, one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. Regeneration could bring 1,000 jobs to the area, but parts of that development are at risk because of the ban on gap funding.
Secondly, a large bit of land in the Aire valley has potential for industrial development and has been earmarked for that in the plan. To open it up, issues of contamination and land access need to be addressed. I am glad to say that last week, in their transport announcement, the Government said that they would fund their share of the east Leeds link road, but that leaves the city council to raise the funds for its matching contribution.
One of the sources that the city council wants to look to are the owners of that land. They are a bit reluctant to put the money up front because they are not sure what will happen. Gap funding would have met not just the

funding gap, but the timing gap, by allowing the investment to go in first, opening up the land and then possibly leading to a situation where all the money could be clawed back fix m the owners of the land after successful development. That has come to an end.
On the issue of funding from regional development agencies, I understand that it is Conservative party policy to abolish the RDAs. It would be helpful if the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman made clear what would happen to that funding, which at the moment is the only game in town in relation to regeneration because of the decision on gap funding.
Thirdly, Mount St Mary's church is on the east bank, which overlooks the city. It is a grade II listed, unused Catholic church, which the Mount St. Mary's trust, working with a developer and a housing association, wants to convert into housing. It has secured single regeneration funding but Yorkshire Forward and English Partnerships have now said that they cannot help because they no longer have access to gap funding.
That is a tragedy. If we apply the three Commission concerns, we realise how ridiculous it is. There is no windfall for anyone to benefit from. How could the developer, which is a housing association with a development company, get an unfair advantage? The flats cannot be exported. It is nonsense. As a result, a piece of Leeds history that commands a magnificent view over the city lies idle and pro vides homes for pigeons, rather than for people. It is almost as though the Commission has reversed that old conundrum about theory and practice and said about gap funding, "That is all very well in practice, but how might it affect trade in theory?" That seems to have been its thought process.
As hon. Members will gather, I find it hard to detect any common sense. What the Commission has done is actively to discourage the bringing forward of the brownfield land that every hon. Member in the Chamber agrees should be the focus of development, a subject I notice is dear to the heart even of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. I wish the Minister all good speed and success in her discussions with the Commission, although, based on our discussions with it, I do not know whether it will act terribly quickly. However, I hope that she will continue to impress on the Commission the urgency of agreeing a new framework. It is what we desperately need in places such as Leeds if we are to carry on successfully with urban regeneration.

Miss Anne McIntosh: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), even though his constituency is more eligible for brownfield sites than mine, where we have a dearth of appropriate sites. I was slightly bemused by his comments about the transport settlement last week because I saw that it was only Labour-held seats that received any such settlement. Perhaps the Minister might tell us in which part of north Yorkshire any of my Conservative colleagues might benefit.
For the benefit of interest to right hon. and hon. Members I should declare that in 1978 I was a stagiaire—I did a traineeship—with the Commission in Directorate-General IV where we were all allowed to work on briefs such as this. I worked on joint ventures and was not able to participate in any article 92 agreements.
We may have had a new insult aided to the House's vocabulary today—we could call it a full Monti—in relation to whether it is a greater insult for a Commissioner to be called an unelected bureaucrat or, in the words of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), an academic.
I should like to use my experience to draw hon. Members' attention to why article 92 applies in cases such as gap funding in so far as it affects trade between member states. In May this year, I was on the same Select Committee visit as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. I understand that this issue was brought to the Commission's attention because a complaint was made by a constituent in another member state where it was felt that state aid had been misused. It was felt that a car distributor was benefiting and was deemed to have been given an uncompetitive advantage over his competitors in other member states. Having said that, I am intrigued as to why it is more appropriate for the state to take the risk than a private sector company. I am sure that all hon. Members would feel much more comfortable if the private sector, which stands to gain, were to take the risk rather than passing it on.

Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss McIntosh: No. The hon. Gentleman has spoken and has intervened on almost every speaker. I hope to allow time for my remaining hon. Friends to participate in the debate.
I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date on her discussions with the Commission, and Commissioner Monti on how it will be appropriate to enable local authorities to continue to operate gap funding in assisted areas. There was some evidence to suggest that a slight delay in her Department's drawing up the maps for the new assisted areas had compounded another delay. I hope that the right hon. Lady will report on that to the House. I hope that she will also tell us about her longer-term discussions with the Commission on a possible new regeneration framework and whether the Commission and Commissioner Monti are minded to have regard to that.
We took a great deal of evidence on alternatives, and perhaps the Minister will report on that, too. One possibility was to look at public service exemptions from competition policy under article 88. There were three other alternatives, which included scope within the current EU aid provision so that grant regimes, albeit at a reduced rate, would remain within assisted areas. Another was horizontal aid rules providing opportunities for regeneration funding to a particular industry or region, albeit greatly reduced in scope. A further alternative was direct development, whereby the state undertakes site assembly, reclamation and provision of infrastructure and thereafter releases the development on to the open market.
The evidence taken by the Committee prompts the question of why gap funding has beer used so much only in the United Kingdom. At paragraph 102 of the minutes of evidence, Professor Fothergill, the co-ordinator of special programmes for Barnsley metropolitan borough council, said:
I am only guided … by what other people tell me and other people tell me that we have been ahead of the rest of the European Union in employing public/private partnerships. The tradition in the other Member States of the EU is much more one either of direct development by the public sector or of end users of buildings going

through the whole development process themselves. The firm that finally uses the building buys the land, puts the bricks on the ground and so on.
In his evidence, Mr. Chris Brown said:
In Europe, they put much more public sector money into regeneration. They have much more public sector land ownership. The contrast is we have a much greater regeneration need because we industrialised earlier and therefore we have the problems of that industrialisation. Also, we are much better at urban regeneration than they are.
At paragraph 10, Mr. Gill, the commercial director of English Partnerships, said:
elsewhere in Europe agencies or the equivalent of our local authorities, very often carry out direct development site preparation.
I ask the Minister to confirm that, as the Government's response to the report states:
The UK Government is proposing to convene a seminar to which representatives from all the Member States have been invited in order to identify the different approaches which are used to achieve the physical regeneration of derelict or contaminated land across the Community, and the extent to which private sector partners are involved.
Such a development would be very positive indeed.
I also query some of the evidence that the Committee took. At paragraph 14, Mr. Gill seemed to be rather surprised that under European Union rules, contrary to our usual conception, a subsidy is not deemed to be a subsidy when the state takes the risk and the hit.
I am delighted to have been able to make this short, modest speech—which has been especially brief to allow my hon. Friends to speak. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to bring the House very much up to date on the negotiations and tell us which assisted areas the Department hopes to ensure will continue to benefit from that status. I hope that she can also tell us how far we are in establishing for the United Kingdom a new regeneration framework that meets with the Commission's approval.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) has returned to the Chamber, as I wanted to say in his presence that, in his interesting speech, he made a very interesting observation on contaminated land.
I dare say that other hon. Members will say, "What on earth is the hon. Member for Solihull doing speaking in this debate? Solihull is hardly a place of great deprivation or even of much regeneration." There is certainly not much regeneration in my part of the borough. I should explain that I am in that unusual position of representing a constituency that has the same name as a borough whereas I represent only half of the borough. Arguably, in the north of the borough—in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—there is some deprivation. However, as there is hardly any deprivation in my constituency, I am not going to pray in aid the constituency of Solihull to inform me in the debate.
Perhaps I shall, however, hark back to a previous existence of mine, in the 1970s, when I was leader of what was called the West Midlands metropolitan county council—which, after the Greater London council, was the largest local authority in the country. A funny thing happened to the GLC. The then Prime Minister considered


herself somewhat provoked by the GLC and set about abolishing it. To my great disappointment, the other provincial metropolitan authorities—West Midlands, Merseyside, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and Tyne and Wear—also went. I considered that the West Midlands county authority had a real role to play in regeneration, and it was beginning to develop it. When it granted a peripheral planning permission for a greenfield site—not in the green belt—the authority would set the condition that the developer had to deal with an inner-city brownfield site as well.
The classic example concerned Saltley gas works, and it was that example that caused me to return to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. At Saltley, the ground was contaminated to a depth of at least 12 ft, and there were very difficult workings underneath the gas works. The problems gave rise to a concept about which I have not heard much recently but which was very current in the 1970s—negative value. Was it possible that a property could become so worthless and rundown that no one would take it for nothing, and that anyone taking it over would have to be paid? There was quite a lot of discussion about negative value in those days.
Incidentally, in the county council areas there were two cities—Birmingham and Coventry—and five boroughs, namely Solihull, Walsall, Sandwell, Dudley and Wolverhampton. Of course, now that Wolverhampton is a city, we would have to say that there are three cities in the area, and I am sure we all very pleased about that.
I have always lived either in Birmingham or close to it. It is possible to see how Birmingham, as a typical big provincial city, has rolled out into the countryside over some 200 years. Its progress at various stages can be traced, rather as the rings of a tree display its growth. What is quite near today's city centre was once the edge of the city: proud villas with a name and a date over their doors can be found there, and one realises that they belonged to what was once fashionable Birmingham. However, the city's progress has gone dangerously far into the Warwickshire countryside, as the economically mobile have headed for suburbia and, ultimately, for rural addresses.
Any constituency with a great industrial city on one side and Warwickshire countryside on the other will experience pressure on its green belt. There are some very sensitive areas in my part of the world and the pressure on the green belt is remorseless.
Mention has been made today of the north, the south and the south-east; I hope that I might aspire to be the authentic voice of the midlands. Our greatest anxiety is that Birmingham will sprawl into Coventry. There is a crucial corridor of green belt called the Meriden gap between the two cities, and everyone in my area wants to defend it.

Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman, as my constituency is in a somewhat similar position on the edge of Manchester. The hon. Gentleman suggests that debate has centred on the south and the midlands, but I want to extend the case that

has been made to the north-west. Does he agree that this is one of the most crucial issues for suburban constituencies such as ours?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, I do. I have travelled through the hon. Gentleman's constituency and accept that it bears distinct similarities to mine.
In my area, we are very anxious about three motorway service station applications in Solihull, which would mean that local people would never see the night sky again. There is interesting talk of a rail link between the Land Rover plant that is the largest employer in my constituency and the west coast main line. I cannot but think that the Deputy Prime Minister would be extremely enthusiastic about that link, as it would take more than 100,000 lorries a year off the roads. However, I trespass not on the constituency of Meriden, through which most of the track goes—the plant is in my constituency.
I am conscious of the pressure of time; there are others who would like to speak. I will end with a yuletide indulgence, if I may. I took the opportunity last Friday of planting an oak tree to Brueton park in Solihull. The oak tree was twice as tall as me, which would not be very difficult. I end on a note of tribute to the Warwickshire wildlife trust, which made this all possible—in particular Dr. Andy Tasker, the director.
My final word is simply this: let us all remember that the renaissance was financed by the private sector. There is a real role for the private sector in regeneration, and I look forward to seeing it.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their restraint in allowing me to contribute to the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), I represent a constituency that is largely green belt. I sympathise with and endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Our constituencies, where the green belt will be concreted over, are the flip side of the difficulties of urban regeneration. If we suck investment and the most talented people from the north-west and the north-east down to the economic magnet of the south-east, we will continue to make problems for ourselves, which any amount of urban regeneration schemes will be unable to solve.
I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on a brave speech—with all the loaded meaning that "brave" has when one politician uses it to compliment another—for being prepared to defend her former employers in the European Commission for a decision as outrageous as that made by Commissioner Monti.
I commend the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). I, like him, had the privilege of visiting the Holbeck urban village. For Holbeck to be the victim of the Commission's decision—and there are hundreds of other victims in schemes such as Holbeck up and down the country—is a disaster for urban regeneration. That is why I endorse the introduction to the debate by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee, on which I have the honour to serve.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) chided the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish slightly for the extremity of his remarks. As


far as I was concerned, the hon. Gentleman lost me only when he effectively compared Commissioner Monti to the Luftwaffe. Until then, I was with him all the way.
The right emotion about the decision is anger. It was a capricious, foolish, stupid decision by the European Commissioner; there was no question of balance in terms of the effect on the single market and the disaster that it has wrought on urban regeneration.
The first point that I want to make to the Minister is one of regret. The Government should have fought over the decision. For them to roll over and say that one of the factors that led them not to fight the case was because it was part of our wider interests within the European Union was wrong. If the right hon. Lady wanted to hear the legal case for fighting the decision, she had only to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. With forensic skill, he laid out the legal weaknesses of the European Commission's position.
I am appalled at the quality of the legal advice that the Minister must have received if she thought that there was no case to fight. The Government should have taken the case not only to the European Court of Justice but to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, because the decision was a disaster for urban regeneration. I should like to explain in a little detail why it is as bad as the Select Committee report says. The key point is the scale of the money that has been lost to urban regeneration.
In the previous three years that the partnership investment programme was working, £2.1 billion was levered into urban regeneration, with nearly £1.5 billion of that coming from the private sector. That was building on a history of successful urban regeneration schemes that began with the urban regeneration companies of the late 1980s and the 1990s, which was picked up by English Partnerships and then by the partnership investment programme. It was a stunning success, but that success is now being lost.
Part of the Government's case was that they wanted to protect the 300 existing schemes in that quixotic way, although they were somehow in violation of the state-aid rule according to the Commissioner' s ruling, and to allow those schemes to continue. The fact is that we have lost all the other schemes that were to come on stream.
All that the Government have been able to do is put £500 million extra into the RDAs to fund urban regeneration. Of course, that extra money for the RDAs is not only for urban regeneration. It has to meet a host of other priorities. It will be up to the RDAs to decide their order of priorities.
All we know is that, for the next three years, that £500 million is a maximum figure. As has been said, the real problem lies in the fact that the costs are now all up front. When the schemes have to be under way, a public sector body will have to find public-sector money for the up-front costs of the urban regeneration schemes that they want, in a battle with the Treasury and with all the other demands that are always there on public sector bodies. That will put a huge burden on individual schemes that are competing for the limited pot of money. The risk is being borne entirely by the public sector. In terms of the scale of resources available for urban regeneration, the quantum on the face of it is extremely high, but the resources will also all have to be sound within the public sector.
The second disaster is what has happened to the people and the talent available to undertake urban regeneration projects. When the Select Committee took evidence on the urban White Paper and the partnership investment programme we heard from some impressive people. Chris Brown of AMEC Developments and Tom Bloxham of Urban Splash are two names that spring to mind as witnesses who came across not only as outstanding entrepreneurs in their own field, but as men of immense quality, who have brought private-sector drive and enthusiasm to urban regeneration projects.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon asked how many people from English Partnerships have gone to the RDAs to help them to deliver. The real question is not where have those people gone from English Partnerships, but what has happened to the people in the private sector.
I draw the attention of the House to the evidence that we took from Chris Brown of AMEC, when he was asked:
What are the implications for urban regeneration programmes? I agree with your analysis about where we have come from and what land we have but what really are the implications?
He said:
Jonathon Blackie used the word "disastrous". I would agree. For my part, in my organisation, my colleagues are looking at me and saying, "What do you do now?" It is personally quite a problem.
Chris Brown was the director of AMEC Developments for urban regeneration. He also stated, when considering the effects and what is already happening within the industry:
It has hardly started. What happens in practice is, if we take a scheme to an RDA and say, "This needs some grant", they say, "Unlucky. Bring it back maybe sometime in the future. We are not sure." What we—
Amec—
say to our people is, "Do not bother yourselves with schemes which you think need grant. Go and do something that looks commercial.
That is the real disaster, as well as the money. All the talented people from the private sector who involved themselves in urban regeneration will do something else. The victims will be people who live in places such as Holbeck urban village—schemes whose success we desperately need in order to deliver urban regeneration throughout the country. The European Commission ruling was a disaster; we should continue to fight it and we should try to reinstate that scheme.

Mr. Tim Loughton: It is high time that the House discussed urban regeneration. We have had a good debate—albeit conducted under the obscure parliamentary device of a 20-line motion on supplementary estimates, comprising a medley of environmental causes. Before this debate, the House had been entitled only to a short session of questions on the long-awaited urban White Paper and to some references in the pre-Budget report to urban regeneration tax breaks.
The attendance in the House, on an otherwise quiet evening, makes it clear that the latest buzz words—urban regeneration—strike a chord with many hon. Members. There is an obvious breadth of interest and experience across many constituencies. We heard of the experiences of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman); I too have visited some of the projects that she mentioned. The hon. Member for South Thanet


(Dr. Ladyman) clearly demonstrated that partnership investment programmes were essential when the figures do not add up. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) made an excellent speech.
We heard outright condemnation of Mario Monti; words such as evil, mad, misguided and bonkers were used—that was the toned-down version. There was universal condemnation of the decision over which he presided. The current attacks on the green belt will continue and accelerate unless we get urban regeneration absolutely right—as was clearly demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) who described the attack on green fields in Hertfordshire. He pointed out that brownfield and greenfield interests are inextricably linked. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) mentioned the greenfield problems in her area. There are similar problems in Solihull and Reigate.
There was a broad consensus on many issues—with the possible exception of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) that RDAs had a monopoly on urban regeneration; I shall return to that point later in my remarks.
As I said, the latest buzz words in environmental parlance are urban regeneration. The profile of urban regeneration was raised considerably by the report of Lord Rogers—who has perhaps become its great guru—and the work of the urban taskforce. However, the urban White Paper, which responded to the report, singularly failed Lord Rogers's own test. Generously, only 14 proposals from the Rogers report were adopted by the urban White Paper.
Yesterday's news that the Government intend to overrule local authorities in the south-east—by rejecting the south-east regional planning committee figures and imposing 39,000 homes per year for the first five years and then accelerating the programme—is a slap in the face for local democracy. It is an act of environmental vandalism—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden so correctly said—and makes effective urban renewal even more urgent.
To date, the Government do not have an impressive record on urban regeneration. In their first four years, they budgeted about £5.7 billion for urban regeneration projects, but that compares with £6.1 billion—before inflation—in the last four years of the previous Conservative Government. The Government have introduced about 26 conflicting and disjointed initiatives—as many hon. Members pointed out—many of which cut across the same resources and local expertise; for example, education action zones, sure start, health action zones, neighbourhood support funds and so on. They all have merits, but they are a disjointed and unco-ordinated muddle.

Mrs. Gilroy: When I was elected to my constituency, I had the doubtful privilege of inheriting from my Conservative predecessor the poorest ward in England. In Plymouth, the disparate projects to which the hon. Gentleman refers add up to the fact that unemployment in the city has returned to the average figure for the first time in 20 years. Will he clarify how the cuts of £55 million, which would result from the £16 billion

package of cuts proposed by the shadow Chancellor, would be spread across Plymouth's greatly valued public services and regeneration projects?

Mr. Loughton: The disparity and disjointedness of the various initiatives has posed an enormous problem. The hon. Lady does not know what the budget for urban regeneration will be under the next Conservative Government. If she waits, she will be rather pleasantly surprised.
The Government's performance and innovation unit stated that the clear evidence from those on the ground is that there are too many Government initiatives causing confusion, not enough co-ordination and too much time spent negotiating the system, rather than delivering. I shall continue to deal with that record. More families now live in poor households than did under the previous Government. Some 14.25 million people live in households with less than half the average income, which is more than double the number in the early 1980s and an additional 500,000 on the high point in 1992–93, when the country was in recession.
Despite the Government's lofty claims about eradicating child poverty, there is no evidence for any reduction in number of children—there are 4.5 million—who live in households with less than half the national average income. One million older people have no income other than state benefits. More people live in temporary housing. The number of priority homeless has risen by 3,000. In London, the number of priority homeless has risen by 14 per cent. The number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has risen by 51 per cent. since 1997. The numbers of low weight births, problem drug users, excess winter deaths and people in young offender institutions have all risen. According to almost any measure of poverty, social deprivation or social exclusion, the Government's record is not impressive, but they do not like to hear that.

Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Loughton: I want to make progress; the hon. Lady had a good shot before
On rising crime, making the streets safe must be the prerequisite of any sustainable urban regeneration project, but the figures for the inner cities are most worrying—3,000 fewer police officers and hundreds of early releases are inextricably linked with the fact that crime has risen by 4 per cent. in Greater Manchester; by 12.6 per cent. in the Metropolitan police area; and by 5.2 per cent. in Merseyside, partly because of the exodus from our cities of about 90,000 people a year.
The Government's record is not impressive, and it is right that we should analyse the details of the grants under the no less than 27 headings and sundry titles to discover whether the money is being well spent.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, published earlier this month, included evidence to show that regeneration attempts are being undermined by a breakdown in trust between residents and service providers, especially on large, problem council estates. It is little wonder that the Environment Select Committee said in its 11th report in July that the quality of services provided to urban neighbourhoods is very poor, despite the large amount of mainstream funds spent.
How will the Minister judge the success and the value for money of the urban regeneration grants? The pre-Budget report announced the possibility of up to 12 new urban regeneration companies based on three pilot schemes, but gave no indication of how those schemes were performing or on what criteria they were being judged. How much of that policy can be achieved given the absence of any primary legislation, especially to give urban regeneration companies proper teeth, and given the absence of a renaissance Bill, any urban priority area legislation or any compulsory purchase measure?
I want to ask the Minister some more questions on the Pre-Budget report because its detail does not bear close scrutiny. On the proposals for zero stamp duty in disadvantaged areas, when will she tell us what constitutes a disadvantaged area? Where are they? Will they be established on a ward basis using an index of deprivation? If the amount of stamp duty exemption is not capped, how much will it help residents in larger, higher value homes?
Last week, during a meeting of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, the Financial Secretary seemed to think that the zero-rate stamp duty exemptions were aimed at business, with purely a knock-on effect on residential property, yet everyone knows that the stamp duty take from business and residential properties is split roughly 50:50.
Last year, 660,000 properties were sold worth less than £60,000—the sum at which stamp duty kicks in. That represents more than 40 per cent. of sales. Without those in London and the south-east, the vast majority of property sales last year did not qualify for stamp duty. So how will the measure help most deprived areas rather than act as a kick-back for people living in houses worth £500,000 or £750,000 in Islington, Hackney and such places?
There are similar question marks over certain measures that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, sound good and can be welcomed in principle, but in practice do not amount to much more than a row of beans. Let us consider regional development agencies. It is true—we have been clear—that we do not believe that RDAs add value. Typically, between 75 and 80 per cent. of their budgets are purely for distributing single regeneration budget spending.
Urban regeneration happened long before RDAs came on the scene. From 1981 onwards, there were urban development corporations, enterprise action zones and everything else. RDAs are not essential. So, I assure the hon. Member for Leeds, Central that we would first save the £70 million of RDA administration costs and recycle it into sharp-end regeneration and spending. Their powers would be devolved to local authorities or the Government offices of the regions, as before.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Loughton: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I should like to make some progress as I am very short of time.
There is a serious question mark over the distribution of the sixth round—in the summer—of single regeneration budget funding, which the Minister has failed to address. Of the top 10 Labour-held marginal constituencies involved in a bid under SRB—six in August—why did all 10 receive their bid, yet nine of them contain no ward

among the 10 per cent. most deprived on the normal deprivation index? Indeed, only one contained a local authority eligible for neighbourhood renewed funding. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made that point, but the answer is rather more sinister than he suggested. Will the Minister assure us about the balance with which the funds are distributed?
I should like to raise many other questions about the way in which funds from the grant will be used, such as those for the ordnance survey—even though we are still awaiting last year's results from what is supposed to be a profitable organisation. We could consider the way in which money will be spent on national parks grants and on the Housing Corporation, which has failed to meet its own targets over the past three years and continues to do so.
I shall end as we started, with reference to gap funding. Friday is the first anniversary of the European Commission's absurd ruling that the partnership investment programme was in breach of state aid rules. As the Select Committee report rightly says, the decision
threatens seriously to undermine … regeneration in England … A body blow for the Urban Renaissance.
The report concluded that the Commission's decision was "illogical and ill-considered" and that it brings
the European Union into disrepute".
As all hon. Members have said, the PIP was highly successful over six years in providing seedcorn—gap—funding of £1.1 billion, which levered in £2.5 billion from the private sector for remediation of land, refurbishment of buildings, site servicing, new build and so on by providing the minimum necessary to allow projects to go ahead. Those projects would not otherwise have done so. The programme was ruled against because it could provide a windfall to the owners of land, represented a subsidy to developers and is a subsidy to an organisation that rents the new premises—or so we are told. As one hon. Member has said, it was clear that the Commission just did not understand what it was doing.
Now, not only are planned schemes at risk, but the good work in many areas may be undermined. The decision will have a serious effect on RDA budgets, as has been said. The 60 per cent. brownfield target, which the Government are far from reaching but we are constantly promised—the actual target date is not until 2008—will now surely be impossible to achieve and can only fuel further pressure on greenfield sites.
How final was the decision? How are we to get out of this mess? How are we to finance the smaller bread-and-butter projects of English Partnerships in particular? How on earth was this allowed to happen?
In the words of the report, the whole issue has been handled abysmally. The Competition Directorate has decided effectively to abolish the most efficient, effective and imaginative regeneration scheme in the European Union. Will the Minister give the whole House—we are all interested—an up-to-date account of the way ahead and what effect the judgment has had on the estimates to which we are agreeing today? I hope that she will also answer the other questions raised, because many more questions have been asked than have been answered by the Government on their record on urban regeneration.

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate. However, may I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) for reminding the House of the tragic death of a policeman in Margate last night? We all join my hon. Friend in offering our deepest sympathies to the policeman's family and to the people of Thanet who, as my hon. Friend made clear, have been so distressed by this incident.
Several Members concentrated on the issue of urban regeneration in its widest form. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) mainly concentrated on issues other than the cancellation of the partnership investment programme. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), for South Thanet and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) covered that programme as well as other issues.
The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) made some interesting points about the metropolitan counties that we no longer have. He also reminded us about suburbs, which were an important aspect of the urban White Paper. I hope that he will take the opportunity to consider the ideas in the White Paper and examine how we have given local authorities and regional development agencies the framework within which to deal with the issues that he raised. We continue to consider the involvement of the private sector as central.
The cancellation of the partnership investment programme has meant that the private sector has woken up to how useful it was. It is now engaged much more fully with regional development agencies and local authorities to examine how it can contribute much more effectively to regeneration and how it can develop an effective replacement to the programme.
I talked to someone from a major financial institution and I was impressed that, because of the Government's work and the commitment that was in the urban White Paper, urban regeneration has become a central part of that institution's corporate strategy. It now seeks to be much more engaged in regeneration, and I hope that the House will be pleased to hear that.
The hon. Member for Bath raised a whole range of issues and, clearly, I cannot respond to all of them this evening. I want to set out the way in which the Government approach urban renaissance. Urban regeneration and rural development go together, and that is important. The work of the urban taskforce was the foundation of the urban White Paper and we have set a clear strategic framework that identifies priorities and does so at a regional and local level.
I was struck by the exchanges on the Floor of the House about empty properties and I noticed that everyone who contributed to the exchanges represented a southern constituency. The issue is different in different parts of the country and those exchanges had nothing to say to those people who deal not with empty properties that have not been renovated quickly enough, but with abandoned properties and properties that are impossible to let or sell.

Mr. Don Foster: I hope that the Minister will accept that the figures show that empty homes are a problem

throughout the country, but she is right to say that there are different approaches to dealing with it, not least in the role of registered social landlords.

Ms Armstrong: Of course I accept the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point, but we too often take a one-dimensional view of the problem which does not reflect differences in the country. That is precisely why a regional approach is so important. Having set out a strategic approach, we now have a much more clearly focused neighbourhood approach, with far greater involvement of local people.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman and others that some of the money was not spent in the first year because we involved local people in a way, they say, in which they had never been involved before. That was so important to them that they asked us to delay the timetable so that they could have more time to get things right. We were happy to do so because we did not want them to be constrained by our timetable; rather, we wanted to be energised by their timetable so that our actions would be effective.
I want to make only one more point on wider regeneration because I cannot respond to every point that was made. We seek to ensure that mainstream programmes work more effectively. The neighbourhood renewal fund, which will provide investment of £800 million over the next three years, is geared to that. We want to ensure that no area has an educational or health profile that does not reach the targets that have been set. I thought it interesting that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon mentioned education so often, because this Government have put education at the centre of urban regeneration, and our development of the urban renewal fund demonstrates that fully.
I turn now to the main debate, which concerned the partnership investment programme. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee, on his relentless pursuit of the issue. Other colleagues mentioned the benefits that the scheme has brought to their constituencies and the problems that they now face because of the scheme's removal. The Commission's decision on the PIP was clearly a blow, and many hon. Members have spoken of how urban regeneration, in their constituencies and more widely, will suffer. The PIP was an extremely cost-effective way of delivering regeneration, and apart from reducing the call on public funds, it enabled us fully to harness private sector skills.
When the Commission considered the scheme I argued strongly that the PIP was not illegal state aid because the grant given was the absolute minimum necessary to bridge the gap between the development costs and the market value of the regeneration site. The scheme did not give an unfair competition advantage to the developer because any undertaking could apply for assistance under the PIP, and all costs and values were assessed at open market rates. There was negligible, if any, intra-Community trade in the development of derelict land and buildings.
Despite that, the Commission decided that the PIP breached the state rules for reasons that have been given in the debate. Obviously, we were disappointed, but that decision was logical under a very strict interpretation of the rules. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) asked


why we did not pursue the matter in the European Court. Once the decision was made, that was that, and we had to live with the consequences. We could have decided to argue, but that would have brought great uncertainty to the market, including developers, regional development agencies and local authorities. We took the view that we should get on with the transition and with agreeing new schemes that could be implemented. Once the PIP had finished, we could not operate it—even if we had appealed—without having made an agreement in the way that we did on the transition scheme. A legal challenge would have been lengthy and there was no guarantee that it would have succeeded.
What have we done? First, we were successful in negotiating a deal with the Commission to allow more than 300 projects already in the pipeline to come to fruition, despite the adverse ruling. We are working closely with English Partnerships and regional development agencies to ensure that these projects come on stream as quickly as possible.

Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: I am sorry, no. I do not have time.
Secondly, we provided extra resources to ensure that the projects which previously would have been funded under the PIP could continue. We have made an extra £60 million available this year, which will rise to £150 million next year. That, together with the other money that we have made available to English Partnerships and the RDAs, brings the total for their land and property budgets to £351 million in 2001 and £379 million in 2001–02.
Thirdly, we have begun the important work of developing a new framework by notifying the Commission of five new schemes that will partially replace the PIP. Two of the schemes will provide gap funding in the assisted areas for bespoke and speculative projects. The three other schemes, which will operate anywhere in England, cover direct development, neighbourhood renewal and environmental regeneration. I am confident that all of these schemes will be approved shortly.
More widely, we underpinned the Government's total commitment to the regeneration of our towns and cities and to addressing the decline in social cohesion in the country when we published the urban White Paper. This sets out our vision for an urban renaissance and builds on the work of the Rogers taskforce.
The White Paper contains a wide range of proposals that is designed to stimulate the regeneration of our urban areas. The proposals include the fiscal incentives, to which hon. Members have referred, to encourage the clean-up of brownfield land, up to 12 new urban regeneration companies and five more millennium villages, new planning policy guidance to put urban renaissance at the heart of the urban planning system, and a new £100 million public-private partnership for the English cities fund, subsequently rising to £250 million. Together with our work on tackling social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal in addressing the problems of the most deprived areas, this represents the most comprehensive set of measures that has been designed to regenerate our towns and cities.
We believe that we have good arguments that support the need for a regeneration framework. Physical regeneration serves community objectives by improving

the standard of living and quality of life, for example. None of the existing frameworks serves regeneration goals. Regeneration is a horizontal rather than a sectoral issue, and can apply across the range of economic sectors. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) understands these terms because they are used by the Commission. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) had been in the Chamber all evening, he would know that they represent the issues that we have been discussing.
All existing and future member states would benefit from the existence of a framework for furthering regeneration objectives. Having a regeneration framework in place will, in our view, help those countries that are hoping to join the Community by giving them a range of delivery mechanisms to make regeneration work.
We are working with the Commission and examining the scope for creating a new regeneration framework under which state aid would be permitted for the physical regeneration of derelict and disused sites throughout England and the rest of the Community. We are actively engaged in a dialogue with the Commission, and I am optimistic that it will be possible to negotiate a new framework.
Those of us in the House who wish to see the effective enlargement of the EU will want the framework to be in place as soon as possible. The seminar will be held next year. We have engaged with other member states, and they are interested. I believe that we can make progress. I am sure that all sensible people who support regeneration will welcome the proposal.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of Estimates).

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 9.

Division No. 13]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Blizzard, Bob


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Alexander, Douglas
Borrow, David


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bradshaw, Ben


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brand, Dr Peter


Ashton, Joe
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burden, Richard


Atkins, Charlotte
Burgon, Colin


Austin, John
Butler, Mrs Christine


Bailey, Adrian
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Battle, John



Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beard, Nigel
Cann, Jamie


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caplin, Ivor


Begg, Miss Anne
Casale, Roger


Beggs, Roy
Caton, Martin


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cawsey, Ian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Chaytor, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bermingham, Gerald



Berry, Roger
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)






Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clelland, David
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Colman, Tony
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cooper, Yvette
Hurst, Alan


Corston, Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Crausby, David
Jamieson, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keeble, Ms Sally



Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dawson, Hilton
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kidney, David


Dismore, Andrew
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dobbin, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Doran, Frank
Laxton, Bob


Dowd, Jim
Lepper, David


Drew, David
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Edwards, Huw
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Etherington, Bill
Linton, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Livsey, Richard


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Llwyd, Elfyn


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
Love, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Don (Bath)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foulkes, George
McFall, John


Gapes, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


Gardiner, Barry
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McNamara, Kevin


Gerrard, Neil
McNulty, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
MacShane, Denis


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mactaggart, Fiona


Godsiff, Roger
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Goggins, Paul
Mallaber, Judy


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, David (Shetllston)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxton, John


Hain, Peter
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Meale, Alan


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Merron, Gillian


Harvey, Nick
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Miller, Andrew


Hendrick, Mark
Moffatt, Laura


Hepburn, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hood, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hope, Phil






Mountford, Kali
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Soley, Clive


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Spellar, John


Norris, Dan
Squire, Ms Rachel


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Hara, Eddie
Steinberg, Gerry


Olner, Bill
Stevenson, George


Pearson, Ian
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pendry, Tom
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pickthall, Colin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pike, Peter L
Stunell, Andrew


Plaskitt, James
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Purchase, Ken
Timms, Stephen


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tipping, Paddy


Rapson, Syd
Todd, Mark


Raynsford, Nick
Truswell, Paul


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rendel, David
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tyler, Paul


Rooney, Terry
Tynan, Bill


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Walley, Ms Joan


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Watts, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Webb, Steve


Ryan, Ms Joan
White, Brian


Salter, Martin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sanders, Adrian
Wicks, Malcolm


Savidge, Malcolm
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Sawford, Phil
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Shaw, Jonathan
Willis, Phil


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wills, Michael


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wood, Mike


Singh, Marsha
Woodward, Shaun


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)




Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mr. Don Touhig and


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Clive Betts.


NOES


Blunt, Crispin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
McIntosh, Miss Anne



Swayne, Desmond


Chope, Christopher



Fabricant, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Mr. David Wilshire and


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £81,746,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2001 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on payments to the Housing Corporation: Housing Revenue Account Subsidy; grants towards and advice on the renewal of private sector housing; the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund; homelessness, including the Rough Sleepers Unit; housing management; rent and leasehold services; support for the UK construction industry; planning and minerals research and other planning programmes; payments to the Ordnance Survey (Trading


Fund); the London Development Agency; Regional Development Agencies; the New Deal for Communities and other help for deprived neighbourhoods; Single Regeneration Budget; Urban Regeneration Agency (English Partnerships); Housing Action Trusts; Estate Action; Groundwork; coalfields regeneration; European Union agency payments including those for ports and railways in Wales; European Regional Development Fund projects not funded by or in advance of receipts; Countryside Agency; Nature Conservancy Council for England; National Parks Grant; bulk pensions transfers; and sundry other grants-in-aid, grants and payments in support of housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy and countryside and wildlife initiatives, including related research, publicity and publications.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2000–01

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55(1) and (2) (Questions on voting of estimates &c.),
That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,352,561,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2001, as set out in HC 962 of Session 1999–2000.—[Mr. Pope.]

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 10.

Division No. 14]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Caplin, Ivor


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Casale, Roger


Alexander, Douglas
Caton, Martin


Allen, Graham
Cawsey, Ian


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Chaytor, David


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atkins, Charlotte



Austin, John
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bailey, Adrian
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Battle, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beard, Nigel
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Iain


Begg, Miss Anne
Colman, Tony


Beggs, Roy
Cooper, Yvette


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corston, Jean


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cranston, Ross


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blackman, Liz
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dalyell, Tam


Blizzard, Bob
Darvill, Keith


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Borrow, David
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davidson Ian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Burden, Richard



Burgon, Colin
Dawson, Hilton


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dean, Mrs; Janet


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Denham, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Dobbin, Jim



Dobson. Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Cann, Jamie
Doran, Frank





Dowd, Jim
Lepper, David


Drew, David
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Edwards, Huw
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Etherington, Bill
Linton, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Livsey, Richard


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Llwyd, Elfyn


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
Love, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Don (Bath)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foulkes, George
McFall, John


Gapes, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


Gardiner, Barry
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McNamara, Kevin


Gerrard, Neil
McNulty, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
MacShane, Denis


Gidley, Sandra
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mallaber, Judy


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, David (Shetlleston)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Merron, Gillian


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Harvey, Nick
Miller, Andrew


Hayes, John
Moffatt, Laura


Healey, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hendrick, Mark
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hepburn, Stephen
Morley, Elliot


Hill, Keith
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hinchliffe, David



Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mountford, Kali


Hope, Phil
Mullin, Chris


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Howells, Dr Kim
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hoyle, Lindsay
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Olner, Bill


Hurst, Alan
Pearson, Ian


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pickthall, Colin


Illsley, Eric
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Plaskitt, James


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Jenkins, Brian
Pound, Stephen


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Powell, Sir Raymond



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Purchase, Ken



Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Rendel, David


Keeble, Ms Sally
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rooney, Terry


Kidney, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Kirkwood, Archy
Ruddock, Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Laxton, Bob
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)






Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Salter, Martin
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Sanders, Adrian
Timms, Stephen


Savidge, Malcolm
Tipping, Paddy


Sawford, Phil
Todd, Mark


Shaw, Jonathan
Truswell, Paul


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Tynan, Bill



Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Watts, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Webb, Steve


Soley, Clive
White, Brian


Southworth, Ms Helen
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Spellar, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stevenson, George
Willis, Phil


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wills, Michael


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wood, Mike


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Woodward, Shaun


Stunell, Andrew
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Don Touhig and


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. Clive Betts.


NOES


Blunt, Crispin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chope, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Fabricant, Michael



Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Hayes, John
Mr. David Wilshire and


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Mr. Gerald Howarth.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resulutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Andrew Smith, Mr Stephen Timms, Miss Melanie Johnson and Dawn Primarolo do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to apply to certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 2001: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 7].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on Tax Simplification (Joint Committee) and the Business of the House Motion relating to the sitting on 21st December may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pope.]

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 32.

Division No. 15]
[10.28 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Dean, Mrs Janet


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dismore, Andrew


Alexander, Douglas
Dobbin, Jim


Allen, Graham
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Doran, Frank


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dowd, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Drew, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Atkins, Charlotte
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Austin, John
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Battle, John
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Beard, Nigel
Flint, Caroline


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Flynn, Paul


Begg, Miss Anne
Follett, Barbara


Beggs, Roy
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Foulkes, George


Benton, Joe
Gapes, Mike


Bermingham, Gerald
Gardiner, Barry


Blackman, Liz
Gerrard, Neil


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Godsiff, Roger


Borrow, David
Goggins, Paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradshaw, Ben
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burgon, Colin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Healey, John


Cann, Jamie
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Caplin, Ivor
Hendrick, Mark


Casale, Roger
Hepburn, Stephen


Caton, Martin
Hill, Keith


Cawsey, Ian
Hinchliffe, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Chaytor, David
Hope, Phil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hurst, Alan


Clelland, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Coffey, Ms Ann
Illsley, Eric


Coleman, Iain
Jamieson, David


Colman, Tony
Jenkins, Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corston, Jean



Cox, Tom
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Crausby, David
Jones, Helen (Warrigton N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)



Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Darvill, Keith
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kidney, David


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)



Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dawson, Hilton
Laxton, Bob






Lepper, David
Pearson, Ian


Leslie, Christopher
Pickthall, Colin


Levitt, Tom
Pike, Peter L


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Plaskitt, James


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Pope, Greg


Linton, Martin
Pound, Stephen


Lock, David
Powell, Sir Raymond


Love, Andrew
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


McCabe, Steve
Prosser, Gwyn


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Purchase, Ken


McFall, John
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


McIsaac, Shona
Rapson, Syd


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Raynsfod, Nick


McNamara, Kevin
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McNulty, Tony
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Mactaggart, Fiona



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mallaber, Judy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Martlew, Eric
Ryan, Ms Joan


Maxton, John
Salter, Martin


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Savidge, Malcolm


Merron, Gillian
Sawford, Phil


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Shipley, Ms Debra


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Singh, Marsha


Miller, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Morley, Elliot



Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mountford, Kali
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mullin, Chris
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Spellar, John


Norris, Dan
Squire. Ms Rachel


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Eddie
Stevenson, George


Olner, Bill
Stewart, David (Inverness E)





Stoate, Dr Howard
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Walley, Ms Joan


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Watts, David



White, Brian


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Timms, Stephen
Wills, Michael



Wood, Mike


Tipping, Paddy
Woodward, Shaun


Todd, Mark
Worthington, Tony


Truswell, Paul
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. Don Touhig and


Tynan, Bill
Mr. Clive Betts.


NOES


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Llwyd, Elfyn


Blunt, Crispin
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brand, Dr Peter
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Rendel, David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Sanders, Adrian


Chope, Christopher
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Stunell, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Foster Don (Bath)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)



Tyler, Paul


Gidley, Sandra
Webb, Steve


Harris, Dr Evan
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Harvey, Nick
Willis, Phil


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. David Wilshire and


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Tax Simplification (Joint Committee)

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move,
That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider tax simplification bills, and in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
This is a narrow motion for the process of agreeing new procedures by which Parliament can scrutinise tax simplification Bills and ensure that they are fit to be enacted. These are Bills produced by the Inland Revenue tax law rewrite project, and we are considering this motion now because the first such Bill is due before the House shortly.
These are not consolidation Bills, but they have much in common with such Bills. They will restate the law rather than change it. It was clear from the outset that a new procedure would be needed so that Parliament could scrutinise the rewritten legislation properly.
The question was considered in 1996 by a working party set up by the tax law rewrite committee, chaired by Lord Howe of Aberavon. The group proposed that the Bills should be introduced in the House of Commons and then referred after Second Reading to a Joint Committee of both Houses, with a Commons majority and chaired by a Member of that House.
The general approach was broadly endorsed by the Commons Select Committee on Procedure in February 1997, following which this House passed Standing Order No. 60 on 20 March 1997, setting out the broad procedure for tax simplification Bills. The detailed procedure, including such matters as the composition and the proceedings of the Joint Committee, was deferred until such time as it appeared in the new Parliament that a Bill would be ready for enactment.
Today's motion is the first step in setting up this Joint Committee. If the House agrees to the proposal, a message will be sent to another place inviting agreement. If it is agreed, each House will set up its own Committee which, together, will meet as the Joint Committee.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Lady be good enough to tell the House how the Committee will be composed, and what balance of party representation there will be?

Dawn Primarolo: That was to be my next point. At present, we expect the Committee to be composed of 13 members in all, of whom seven will be from this House. The details of the Committee's procedure are still being discussed through the usual channels and will be subject to final agreement.
The fact that the tax law rewrite Bill deals with matters that are traditionally the concern of the Commons is recognised by the fact that the Committee is expected to have a Commons Chairman and a Commons majority, as recommended by the Procedure Committee. The Committee will consider the Bill and amend it if necessary. It will, of course, be alert to ensure that no more than minor changes are made and that the procedures are not abused.
The Bill will bring together some 300 pages of legislation, which is currently found in various places. The main legislation is in the Capital Allowances Act 1990, which is, itself, a consolidation Act that brought together earlier legislation.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Committee be able to call evidence as though it were a Special Standing Committee? The House may well think that, in this sort of technical matter, accountants and others should testify to the merits or defects of a Bill to such a Committee.

Dawn Primarolo: The project has already produced four drafts of legislation—the latest in August 2000. I understand—this will be for the final agreement of the House when the procedure is agreed—that the Committee will decide how best to proceed on scrutiny of the legislation. That will be a matter for the Chairman and members.

Mr. Hogg: Are we to understand that the Committee can take evidence if the Chairman and the Committee so determine?

Dawn Primarolo: Yes. I think that I made that clear. If the Committee determines to do that, it would be the case. It is for the Committee to determine how it wants to proceed.
Extensive consultation procedures have been the hallmark of the rewrite project's work to date. There was a round of consultations on four separate drafts of the proposed legislation between October 1998 and February 2000, with the latest draft Bill published in August 2000.
This project is immensely worth while. It will modernise our direct tax legislation, making it clearer and easier to use. The first Bill is a milestone in the projects's work and will show what improvements are possible. In order for it to become law, we need to continue the work undertaken by the previous Administration. In fairness, I must acknowledge the work that they undertook to initiate the project and set the broad parameters. We are taking it forward—I hope with the agreement of the House—to establish a new procedure by which this and successive Bills can be scrutinised and enacted.
The measure is an important step in that direction and I hope that it will command the support of the House. I also hope that, as the legislation proceeds through Parliament, it will enlighten the House about how such Bills can be scrutinised.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that the previous Government initiated the project. I share her view that it is worth while and I look forward to producing something constructive through the passage of the legislation. Under the circumstances, we do not oppose the measure.

Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats will also support the measure, which is historic in that it changes the way in which we deal with tax legislation.
The tax law rewrite project, which was proposed by the previous Government, is incredibly important. Simplifying the language in which the House and its


Committees write our tax legislation is long overdue. Anyone who has tried to work out what tax statutes mean knows that they can be incredibly confusing. As we move towards more self-assessment in both the personal and the business tax sectors, it is important that the legislation by which people have to abide is easily accessible to the wider audience.
We have no problem with the procedure before us. However, we need to go much further. One problem is that the previous and the present Governments have made the tax system far more complicated. The tax law rewrite project is restricted in the way in which it can simplify the tax system. It has been given the remit to restrict itself simply to the language in which the law is expressed, not to deal with the effects that it gives to tax liabilities.
The technical aspects—as well as the language in which the law is expressed—need to be simplified to ensure that there is real tax simplification. I hope that the House accepts this historic measure and that we use it to modernise our procedures with cross-party support. That will ensure that the output of this place is better—not merely in its language, but in its impact on business and compliance costs.
We should develop the link with the other place. The fact that there is to be a Joint Committee is welcome, because Members of the other place can make a positive contribution to some of the complex aspects of these matters. I should like to see the establishment of a House of Lords Select Committee on tax simplification as well as the Joint Committee; it could offer this place some serious lessons.
I do not want to detain the House; but I want to mark this historic occasion. I hope that the Government will be motivated by the success of this measure, which has received cross-party support, to go further in reforming our procedures so that we can more effectively scrutinise tax legislation and make it much simpler.

Mr. David Wilshire: In principle, the measure is a good idea. I am bound to say that because we thought of it in the first place. I am grateful to the Paymaster General for acknowledging that we got something right—I am always pleased to hear that, although I knew it all along.
I am a little confused by the wording of the motion. Will the hon. Lady explain it? I had assumed that we should take a decision on the matter this evening, so I expected the wording of the motion to be "That this House decides to set up a Joint Committee". As those words do not appear, I am baffled.
The motion states:
That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed.
I take that to mean that such a Committee is a good idea, but my response to that is, "So what?", because the motion is merely an expression of opinion. If I am wrong, I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could tell me. The House is only expressing an opinion tonight; we are merely saying that the proposal is a good idea.
The hon. Lady tells us that the other place will discuss the motion; presumably the Lords will say, "Hey, this is a good idea" and send it back to us. It is only at that stage that we shall be asked to pass a motion that states that we

shall do something. I hope that is the position—otherwise the wording of the motion makes no real sense; it merely expresses a good idea.
When the motion comes back to this place for decision, I hope that we shall be given more detail than was included on today's Order Paper. The Paymaster General kindly gave us some information, but it took the prodding of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to elicit details such as how many people would serve on the Committee. It would be helpful if such matters could be decided by the House, rather than by the usual channels carving things up between them in a quiet corner. If the usual channels want the backing of the House, they should ask us to endorse matters rather than telling us about them after they have made a decision. I hope that the hon. Lady can help me on that point.
I am not an expert in financial matters, but I was schooled in the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. The motion is on tax, but I am being asked to agree that Members of the other place, who are not elected, should have a say in taxation matters. I thought that did not happen in this country. The Paymaster General has not yet explained why undemocratic and unelected people should have a say in such matters.
Perhaps that is an admission that, at long last, the Government are going to finish the job of reforming the other place and will ensure that its members are elected. Thus, when the Committee is finally set up—after we have been asked to vote on it—its members from the other place will have a democratic mandate and will be entitled to an involvement in taxation matters. If my understanding is correct, at present, they are not so entitled. I should therefore be grateful if the hon. Lady could put me out of my misery on that point when she sums up.

Mr. Michael Jack: I speak as the former Financial Secretary who established the mechanisms that, I hope, the House will approve this evening, and as a member of the rewrite steering committee. I thank the Paymaster General for supporting the endeavour that the previous Government started in trying to translate the existing tax code into plain English. I also thank her for enthusiastically developing the project.
It would be wrong if I did not put on record my appreciation of the work of the Inland Revenue officials who have laboured very hard indeed to start translating into plain English our complex tax legislation, for without their efforts, we could not discuss the procedure for dealing with the first Bill produced by the tax rewrite exercise.
The product that the Joint Committee will consider reflects the input of many tax practitioners, who have enthusiastically welcomed the efforts involved in such improvements. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, the exercise has thrown up several issues that go beyond the original Committee's remit. The previous Administration designed the procedures and the remit; the current Administration have followed them to the letter. However, many members of the Revenue feel frustrated because they would like the next step, following the rewrite exercise, to involve not


necessarily a change in tax law, but a modification to improve the existing procedures. I should like both things to happen in parallel, but I do not wish to trespass too far beyond the motion.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the problem the fact that, if the House entrusts to a Committee the ability to change procedures and thereby to impose obligations on the citizen, we shall entrust to a Committee a role that should be reserved for the whole House? The House should set obligations and impose penalties.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend would be entirely correct if that were what the exercise was about, but it was not. The exercise was simply and straightforwardly intended to rewrite the existing law in plain and understandable English so far as is possible, given the technicalities of the tax code. We are considering the mechanism by which the House and the other place will be invited to review the fruits of that exercise.

Mr. Hogg: I understand what my right hon. Friend says. I am happy to agree with him, provided that the process does not go beyond that which he outlines. That is why I did not intervene in the Minister's speech. However, my right hon. Friend said that another exercise should exist in parallel. I understood him to say that that exercise would address the merits of any tax requirement with which the citizen had to comply.

Mr. Jack: As a member of the Committee that had the opportunity to listen to some of the remarks made by those who have been closely associated with the exercise, I can see that there are evolving ideas and concepts, which, if they were able to find their place in legislation, would go beyond the exercise of rewriting the tax code in plain English, but would further improve it. However, that is not what the House is invited to approve. I am merely saying to the Paymaster General that I hope that the present Administration will not lose sight of the fact that good ideas that have come out of the exercise are within the scope and purpose of existing tax legislation.
Indeed, ideas have come, for example, from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, which would like to go further in developing an exercise to simplify our tax code. The House is invited to approve a mechanism to make certain that the work of draftsmen and officials has been true to tax law.

Mr. Edward Davey: May I help the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he would like to extend the tax law rewrite project to other areas in order to develop some of the ideas. He is not suggesting that the procedure to which the House is asked to assent is the one that will be used to develop those ideas. Perhaps he would like to describe the procedure that he envisages for such development.

Mr. Jack: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's intervention. If we have a chance to debate another Finance Bill before the election, the Paymaster General

might embrace the idea of developing some of the sensible ideas on, for example, the way in which pay-as-you-earn legislation operates�žsensible, improving measures that do not fundamentally alter the PAYE legislation but make its operation even more effective than the one that will result in due course from the rewrite exercise.
I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but it would be wrong if hon. Members did not put on record their appreciation of the efforts of my right hon. Friend Earl Howe for chairing the Committee and making progress on the exercise with incredible dedication and enthusiasm.
In response to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I reiterate that the exercise that we are asked to approve does not change in any way the present tax code. It merely invites the expertise of both Houses to approve that the new plain English law enacts the existing law in every respect, but in a more understandable linguistic form.

Dawn Primarolo: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who I know has been a keen enthusiast for the tax law rewrite project, both as a Minister in the previous Administration and as a member of the Steering Committee, on which he worked hard. I certainly underline strongly our appreciation of the dedicated work of all those involved with the tax law rewrite, particularly Lord Howe of Aberavon, who has a passion for driving through the legislation.
It is important for hon. Members to remember�žI did not think that I would need to remind them given that the act was one of the last of the previous Government�žthat the project was required to look at rewriting the code, without alteration, so that it was more user-friendly, had a more logical structure, used shorter sentences, was more consistent in the use of definitions, used modern language, clearly signposted related provisions and grouped together similar laws. The project was told that there should be no change in the underlying tax system, although some minor, obvious changes could be made to tidy up legislation. They will be flagged up in the procedure, so that everybody is aware of where they are.
Full consultation with interested parties throughout the life of the project will continue, and a new streamlined parliamentary procedure for enactment of the rewrite Bills will be produced. That was provided for in Standing Order No. 60 and included provision for the Joint Committee, for the involvement of the other place, and for the structure that is similar to that of a Select Committee with all the powers that that entails. The provision recognises that the majority of the Committee's members will be from the House of Commons and that it will be chaired by a Member of this House. That will ensure that the clear interest that this House has in such matters is preserved.

Mr. Hogg: I am not against the proposals that the Paymaster General is outlining, but I want to be clear about one point. It appears to be common ground that the Committee will not be able to alter the substance of underlying tax law. Who will have the overarching role


of supervising the work of the Committee, so that we can be sure that the underlying tax law is not changed by the decisions taken by the Committee?

Dawn Primarolo: I will check that point, but my understanding is that the person appointed to chair the Committee will have the lead responsibility on how the Committee manages its business. It is important that parliamentary draftsmen and Ministers ensure that information is available to members of the Committee, so that they can satisfy themselves of the position. It is not an adversarial Committee structure. It seeks to use the expertise of both Houses, without duplication of procedure, to undertake what seemed to be the simple proposition of rewriting the tax code. Into—dare I say it—a more user-friendly form. The Committee will report to the House and the House will finally have to decide whether it agrees to a Bill. A double lock is in place.
I have covered the points about Members of the other House that were raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). If he examines what the Conservative party did when they were in government, he will see that there is a common thread. The procedure to be established is similar to that for consolidation Bills, and it was recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1997.
The right hon. Member for Fylde and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to simplification. That issue is outside the tax law rewrite requirements, but, in principle, I am sympathetic to their point. I have served on the Finance Bill Committee both in opposition and in government, and I am well aware of the arguments of professional tax bodies, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountant; and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. Last month, this issue was the theme of the Hardman memorial lecture that was given by Lord Howe. It is important to acknowledge that pressure from tax professionals was the stimulus for the review in 1995 that led to the establishment of the tax law rewrite project.
However, the issue gives rise to difficult questions and there is no consensus on how tax simplification should be carried out or on what should be simplified. The rewrite project does not just simplify the tax code; it makes it much clearer and easier to understand.
The Government have taken steps on tax simplification. We included such measures in the Finance Act 2000, and the drafting of new elements of tax legislation and the phraseology that is used follow the example of the tax law rewrite. However, Members will know that such simplification is not always possible, particularly when such measures have to be cross-referenced with parts of the tax code that have existed for a long time.

Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Lady consider calling a half-day meeting, between now and the election, of all the interested parties, some of whom she has mentioned, at least to discuss with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue what is meant by tax simplification? They could then perhaps define the scope and scale of such an exercise.

Dawn Primarolo: I have already had such discussions with those organisations. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience as Financial Secretary that when a Minister seeks to defend revenue that does not arrive in the Treasury as planned by tax law because of

highly complex tax planning measures, responding to those complex proposals requires a complex solution. One of the big issues for us is anti-avoidance legislation, which all Governments have increasingly used.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to make a brief point that is slightly wide of the debate. The Government undertook consultation on a general anti-avoidance regulation. We offered the profession alternatives: a general regulation or the continuation of specifically targeted anti-avoidance measures. We went further and consulted on two solutions to a specific problem; one of those solutions was targeted and the other was a general regulation. The profession decided that it wanted to stick with the specific legislation. That has clear implications for the complexity of the tax code and the operation of the system.
Those issues go beyond the tax law rewrite but they are pertinent to the wider debate on the tax code. I am sure that the House will continue to debate those matters, not only in proceedings on finance Bills but in general finance debates. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am aware of those issues and I pay particular attention to them. However, as he will know, it is not always as simple to introduce a measure as it is to agree to it.

Mr. Edward Davey: Has the Minister given any thought to other procedures that the Government could adopt to try to further the tax simplification process? For example, Lord Howe has argued that we could separate the Finance Bill into two parts, one containing the key political tax-raising measures and the other technical tax measures that could be debated at greater length with more consultation.

Dawn Primarolo: I shall try to be careful on this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is wide of the debate. If the definitions of policy issues and technical issues were so clear cut, I am sure that Governments would have separated them long ago because it seems to be an obvious proposition. The Opposition might take a slightly different view from the Government on what counts as a technical issue and what is a policy issue.
The general point concerns how we can simplify our tax system so that it is understandable, because modern economies such as ours have complex tax laws. We must also ask how we can make the system accessible, and the tax law rewrite project is a means of doing that. Another means is to ensure that taxpayers have a positive relationship with the tax authorities. The Government are making changes to make that relationship as easy as possible. Of course, the drafting of new legislation is crucial. We are alive to those issues. These are all issues outside of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not try your patience any more. I have tried to give a flavour and respond to the points that have been made.
I am delighted that there is so much agreement in the House that we have adopted the right way to proceed, and that we have been prepared to pay tribute to those who have worked so hard on our behalf in the tax law rewrite committee. The new procedure will prove to be effective, provide the scrutiny that the House requires and produce the tax legislation for which we would all hope. I hope that the House agrees with the proposed procedures.
Question put:—

Mr. Deputy speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

Business of the House

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December—

(1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 and the Order relating to Thursday sittings and meetings of standing committees [20th November],—

(a) the House shall meet at half-past nine o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;
(b) proceedings on business shall be interrupted at Five o'clock;
(c) in their application to that sitting, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time five hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past Eight o'clock shall be substituted for reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration); and
(d) no standing committees sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock and half-past Ten o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) with the substitution in that paragraph of 'twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock' for 'One o'clock' and 'twenty minutes to Ten o'clock' for 'a quarter past One o'clock';

(2) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Darling relating to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 2000 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000 not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion;
(3) proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment, may continue for up to three hours, and may be proceeded with, through opposed, after Five o'clock; and
(4) in the Order relating to Sittings in Westminster Hall, in paragraph (1)(b), for 'half-past Two o'clock', there shall be substituted 'half-past Twelve o'clock'.

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the motion makes sense, and I ask you to consider whether it should be withdrawn and put in some order before it is debated. Paragraph (3) reads that
proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment, may continue for up to three hours, and may be proceeded with through opposed, after Five o'clock; and …
In my 13 years in this place, I have always read "though opposed".
If I am correct, we have a meaningless motion on the Order Paper. As no amendment has been tabled to correct it and as manuscript amendments are not acceptable, I contend that the motion is out of order and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the simple answer is that there has been a typographical error. I will put the


motion in the form in which it is clearly intended, the word meaning "though" as opposed to "through". I hope that that deals with the matter.

Mr. Tipping: I shall set out briefly the consequences of the motion for the benefit of Members who are in the Chamber. In effect, it moves a normal Monday to Wednesday sitting day forward by five hours to a 9.30 am start. It protects the slot for questions, business questions and any possible statements. It allows the normal period of three hours for debate on the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order and the draft Social Security Benefits Uprating (No. 2) Order. These measures may be taken separately or together, dependent upon the view of the House.
The motion allows the traditional three-hour pre-recess Adjournment debate. If the House agrees to it, it will allow the House to rise rather earlier on Thursday than usual. Given the time of the year, I know that that will be welcomed by many Members, if not all, and most particularly by members of staff.
Although I may have another opportunity before the House rises for the Christmas recess, perhaps I can take my chance now and wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Tipping: Wait a minute.
I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), with whom I have spent many happy hours during the year, and other Members a very happy Christmas. I will of course give the opportunity of a pre-Christmas present to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: It is good of the Minister to be so nice. Perhaps he will now answer my question. I understand that there are advantages in bringing forward the sitting hour on Thursday 21 December, and I do not object to that. Will the hon. Gentleman make it plain to the part of the House that is now present that he is not intending to build on the motion, and is not intending to apply it to ordinary sittings on Thursdays?

Mr. Tipping: No, that is not the Government's intention. I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that guarantee from the Government. Business motions always have to be approved by the House. We discussed that earlier today. A number of hon. Members want such matters to be discussed by the House. That is right and appropriate, and it is a matter for the House.
I hope that the right hon. and hon. Members who are present will approve the motion. It is for the benefit of most hon. Members and for the benefit of staff. I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I support the Minister's proposal. I am the only woman in the Chamber and I hope that hon. Members will not take this as a sexist comment, as I am sure that it applies equally to them, but the coming Thursday is an exceptional Thursday. I would share the concerns of my

right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) if I thought that the Minister's proposal was to become the norm for Thursdays, but this Thursday is different.
No doubt we all have turkeys to stuff, mulled wine to warm and halls to deck with holly this Thursday. That is not something that I would do on any other Thursday during the year, and I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the opportunity to make their Christmas preparations and pass on their good wishes to their constituents and members of their family.
I warmly welcome the pragmatic suggestion from the Minister. I hope that that does not sound too much like the late Harold Wilson. As the Minister knows, I am not a great supporter of modernisation per se, but in this case he has struck the right chord and the right balance without diminishing the quality of our debate.
In case the proceedings on Thursday pass so rapidly that I do not get a chance to do so then, I join the Minister in wishing all right hon. and hon. Members a happy Christmas. I hope that the House will recognise that we have important business on Thursday. We want it to be given sufficient time and properly dispatched. I look forward to taking my place in the Chamber with the Minister on Thursday, to hear important speeches in the Christmas Adjournment debate. It is right that we are allowing sufficient time, and also allowing hon. Members to get home in good time to be with their families for the Christmas recess. I warmly support the Minister's proposal and urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December—

(1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 and the Order relating to Thursday sittings and meetings of standing committees [20th November],—

(a) the House shall meet at half-past nine o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;
(b) proceedings on business shall be interrupted at Five o'clock;
(c) in their application to that sitting, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time five hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past Eight o'clock shall be substituted for reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration); and
(d) no standing committees sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock and half-past Ten o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) with the substitution in that paragraph of 'twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock' for 'One o'clock' and 'twenty minutes to Ten o'clock' for 'a quarter past One o'clock';

(2) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Darling relating to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 2000 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000 not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion;


(3) proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment, may continue for up to three hours, and may be proceeded with, through opposed, after Five o'clock; and
(4) in the Order relating to Sittings in Westminster Hall, in paragraph (1)(b), for 'half-past Two o'clock', there shall be substituted 'half-past Twelve o'clock'.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

FAMILY LAW

That the draft Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure and Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Child Support (Collection and Enforcement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order [12 December 2000],

SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993

That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01, and the Pre-Budget Report 2000 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

ANIMALS

That the Mink Keeping Order 2000, dated 22nd November 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

BROADCASTING

That the draft Broadcasting (Limit on the Holding of Licences to Provide Television Multiplex Services) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now move to motion No. 16 on the Order Paper.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the motion needs to be moved first, before it can be objected to. I know that after the scintillating display of Christmas fare to which we have been treated by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), we are anxious to make progress, but we must do it in an orderly manner.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 91h February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.
Motion made,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That—
the Lords Message [12th July] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution;
and the following Standing Order be made:


(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
(2) The Committee shall consider—

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);
(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998: and
(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

(3) The Committee shall report to the House—

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.
(4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or
(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or
(c) that the order should not be approved,

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.
(5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.
(6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(7) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Motion made,
That Jean Corston, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), Sir Patrick Cormack and Mr. Robert Maclennan be Members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Road Crashes

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Mr. Bob Russell: The tragic death in the early hours of this morning of PC Jon Odell, killed by a hit and run driver while he was carrying out checks on speeding motorists in Kent, gives added poignancy to tonight's debate, particularly as it has come just four days after two students were killed by an out-of-control car while they stood on a pavement in Nottingham. I know that I speak for the whole House when I extend condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of these three young people, and those of the estimated 40 other people who have been killed on our roads during the past four days.
In the final five days before Christmas there is every likelihood that another 50 people will die. Every day, on average, 10 people are killed in road crashes—about 3,500 will have died this year. Yet despite such an appalling state of affairs, the Library has confirmed that at no time since the 1997 general election have the Government initiated a debate on road safety. Indeed, according to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—PACTS—the last time the Government of the day had a debate on road deaths was in November 1994. In the six years since then more than 20,000 people have been killed on our roads.
I declare an interest in that I am a member of RoadPeace, the national charity for road traffic victims. It was established nine years ago by parents of children killed in road crashes.
Research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory compared hospital and police reported road casualties—it concluded that official statistics are substantially under-recorded. The true financial cost to the nation of crashes involving serious and slight injuries is probably more than £18 billion a year—twice the official figure.
I would like to say much more about RoadPeace's detailed research document, "The Missing Chapter", published in response to the Government's road safety strategy launched in March this year, but I do not have sufficient time this evening to do it justice. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to study it closely.
I deliberately do not use the words "road accident", because crashes that result in injury or death are seldom an accident, but rather the result of incompetent driving, at one end of the spectrum, or reckless driving, at the other—the latter often associated with excessive drinking.
With an average of 10 deaths every day on the roads, that puts the Hatfield rail crash, which resulted in four deaths, into context. Yet the Hatfield disaster attracted massive media attention, with questions and statements in the House, and major disruption of rail services. In contrast, the thousands of deaths in road crashes have been ignored.
It is a tragic irony that the high-profile work to make our railway system safer has caused more deaths and injuries on our roads, as a consequence of people using their cars instead of trains.

Mr. Andrew Miller: As chairman of the all-party group that supports RoadPeace, I commend the hon. Gentleman for the tremendous work that he does. Does he agree that the public perception of the difference between road and rail deaths is not helped by the official Opposition, who last night described the Government's attempts to recoup money from speed cameras for communities as a stealth tax? Will he, on behalf of the Liberal party, join the Labour party in condemning that?

Mr. Russell: I shall indeed, because all of us in public life should welcome any measures that may reduce road deaths. I also pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the part that he has played in RoadPeace and in many other ways to bring to public attention the awful number of road deaths in this country. I mentioned that people leaving trains to use their cars has had the consequence of more road deaths. Indeed, on 8 December, The Oxford Times reported:
A sudden and disturbing rise in deaths and serious injuries on Oxfordshire roads is being, linked to commuters switching from rail to car. Fatal and serious injury accidents are up by nearly a third on the same period as last year.
In the period in question there were 56 crashes involving serious injury and fatalities, compared with 43 the year before.
It would be wrong to say that successive Governments have totally ignored road deaths. My complaint is that too little has been done. Nothing has been done to address the fundamental issue that road crashes and their consequences are not given the importance that they should. I particularly should like to praise the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) who, when he was a transport Minister, introduced the country's first casualty reduction target. That was a good start, which we need to build on. That welcome initiative was an attempt to change the attitude of society which, over the years, has seemingly shrugged its shoulders and become accustomed to accepting the huge human and financial cost of deaths on our roads as one of those things that we can do little to prevent.
I have never accepted the inevitability of any death on our roads. I hope that tonight the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), will give a commitment that the present Government does not either. Surely, the aim should be for a zero death rate, not a target that would still mean that nearly 2,000 of our citizens were being killed every year? The present projection is that one in 80 people will die as a result of a road crash, but the Government's target is to reduce that to one in 160. To bring that statistic into the Chamber, between four and eight hon. Members face the prospect of being killed in a road crash.
No price can be put on the loss of life, but the best official estimates are that the financial cost to the public purse of every fatal crash is about £1 million; it is about £110,000 for a serious injury crash; and £11,000 for a slight injury crash.
I welcome the Minister, but, in truth, I would much prefer a Minister from the Home Office, not the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to respond to my debate. The biggest single measure that can be taken to reduce road crashes would


involve tougher action against those who endanger lives through their driving, whether because of excessive speed, lack of care and attention, general bloody-mindedness—sometimes known as road rage—or, worst of all, driving under the influence of drink or drugs.
Making cars and our roads safe' creates the feeling that the question of reducing the number of people being killed or injured is being addressed. However, if dangerous driving habits are not challenged, all that we are doing is making it more likely that bad drivers will feel even more immune to the consequences of their driving.
I welcome this afternoon's publication of the Government's consultation paper, "Road Traffic Penalties", which proposes tougher action against motorists who drive dangerously, or at excessive speed or while drunk. But what is the point of tougher penalties, when the courts do not use to the full extent the powers that they already have? The Government would do better to get magistrates and judges to start imposing existing penalties in advance of introducing the proposed new ones.
Let me cite an example of the way in which road deaths are treated as less important than any other form of involuntary death. It was set out in shocking, graphic detail in a full-page report in The Sun of 6 December, under a lengthy headline that read:
Allan Jackson was 3 times over the limit when he ran down and killed 3 pals on the pavement. The sentence—Just 8 Years.
The report went on to describe how Jackson killed three young teachers as the result of his drunken driving. Had he shot them or stabbed them to death, he would now be serving three life sentences for murder. But because Jackson was a drunk driver, and despite the fact that he had twice been banned for drink-driving convictions, the judge jailed him for just eight years, which is less than the maximum sentence which, in any event, is a pathetic 10 years. With remission, he could be out of prison in four years.
What sort of message does that send out? Quite simply, if someone is killed in a road crash, the guilty person is treated more leniently than if he had killed using a weapon other than a car driven recklessly. The mother of one of the teachers said:
In my mind the man has committed murder and his car was a lethal weapon.
The court hearing, which The Sun reported, involved a crash in Huddersfield. It is ironic that the headquarters of Brake—a national organisation that promotes road safety in the widest sense—is less than a mile away. Brake held a reception last evening at the House. Those of us who attended were told in a report by executive director Mary Williams:
Ten families a day in the UK lose a loved one in a road crash. These deaths are sudden, horrifying, and violent, causing extensive grief and trauma.
Of course, I accept that measures to make our roads safer are a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, working with the Highways Agency and local councils. However, although I will continue to press for more to be spent on traffic-calming schemes and other road safety measures, the single most important measure that will make a difference is a change of attitude by society towards those who kill and maim on our roads.
That takes us beyond the DETR—it involves not only the Home Office, but also the offices of the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor-General. In October, accompanied by my constituent Mr. Raymond Mason, whose wife was killed in May 1999 in a road crash, which left him with three young sons to bring up, I had a meeting with the Solicitor-General. We were concerned because the driver whose car killed Mrs. Mason escaped prosecution. I regard our one-hour meeting as potentially the most productive that I have experienced since I became a Member of Parliament.
The Solicitor-General, in consultation with the Home Office and other Departments—I hope that they include the DETR—is now considering changing the law in the following ways: creating a new offence of causing death by driving negligence—the court would determine the severity of the case and the sentence; the referral of all crashes involving a road death by the magistrates court to the Crown court for trial by jury or sentence by a judge, even in cases where a guilty plea is entered; immediately suspending the licence of the driver involved in a fatal crash, pending a medical inspection to determine whether he or she has a health condition that may affect driving; providing for an extension, beyond the current six-month legal limit, when alternative charges can be introduced if further evidence emerges either from the defence or prosecution that affects the original charge.
There must be a national crusade against the number of road crashes. The only sure way to reduce road deaths and injuries is for civilised society to regard those who drive at speed, fail to stop after an accident or drink and drive in exactly the same way as we regard those who carry out assaults. We need to shame the irresponsible as if they were thugs—thugs on wheels. We regard assault as unacceptable. We need to change attitudes so that those who endanger others through their driving are likewise condemned for their irresponsible behaviour. Their actions result in thousands of deaths and injuries every year.
The Government, supported by MPs and councillors, should set an example by making driving skills and attitudes the major features in improving road safety. It is all very well making our highways and cars safer, but if reckless and anti-social drivers carry on regardless, crashes will still occur at a sickening rate. We need much tougher legislation against bad drivers, and encouragement for the courts to hand down deterrent sentences against drivers who cause death and injuries.
The worst culprits are the young, and they are often the victims. One in four drivers who die are under 25. That reflects both on their driving inexperience and tendency to take risks. Brake points out that most serious crashes are caused by drivers; the roads and vehicles are not to blame. Deterrent sentences are therefore the most potent method of reducing road crashes.
Drivers who cause accidents through their failures should be more readily disqualified than currently happens. Their vehicles should be taken from them for varying periods. Those who drive too fast put lives at risk. It is regrettable that not everyone agrees that breaking speed limits, especially in built-up areas or on narrow country roads, is socially unacceptable, dangerous and a major cause of deaths and injuries.
What are we to make of Government calls for tougher action against frequent offenders when we consider the action of Judge Tom Longbotham at Swindon Crown court? Last week, he quashed a three-month driving ban on a speeding motorcyclist because he was finding it difficult to get to work. The motorcyclist had been convicted of his third speeding offence; he had been travelling at 101 miles per hour. I can do no better than to quote the road safety manager for the Royal Automobile Club Foundation, Mr. Kevin Delaney, who said of the judge's decision:
This sends out all the wrong signals and sets a dreadful precedent … Speeding is about an attitude of mind and this man clearly didn't care about the speed limit and was grossly irresponsible.
If the Government want to be tough on serious road offenders, they had better make sure that magistrates and judges get the message.
Although there is general condemnation for those who drive while under the influence of drink or drugs, not all drivers have got the message. Tonight's Colchester Evening Gazette reports that, so far this month, Essex police have breathalysed 182 drivers who were over the limit. That is about 50 more than in the corresponding period last year.
I welcome the prospect of more traffic-calming road safety measures to prevent deaths and injuries; of more speed cameras to deter motorists who endanger others through driving too fast; and of educating drivers in how tiredness and lack of concentration such as the use of mobile phones can lead to crashes, but the biggest single measure is for society to regard those who cause crashes in the same way as it does those who are guilty of acts of thuggery and violence.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): As is customary, I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on securing this important debate and on the passion and detail with which he delivered his speech. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who has also contributed to the discussion. I pay tribute to the excellent work of both hon. Members in RoadPeace. I join in the expression of condolences to the families of Police Constable Jon Odell, of the young people tragically killed in Nottingham and, indeed, of all those who have lost their lives in road accidents recently, the pain of whose loss will be acute to their bereaved relatives.
Although Britain's roads are, with Sweden's, the safest in Europe, the risk of accidents and the numbers of deaths and injuries are still unacceptably high. We must do all we can to reduce them.
I am certain that the House will be aware of the Government's firm resolve in that area. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister himself launched our new road safety strategy, which focused on 10 main themes and the corresponding casualty reduction targets that we have set ourselves. As has already been mentioned, by 2010, we want to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. and, within that, the number of child deaths and injuries by 50 per cent.
As the House will appreciate, with such a large range of activities, I shall have to restrict myself to some headline news on our latest initiatives. There is time only to scratch the surface.
Road safety is an integral part of all thinking about roads and traffic management and of our aim to reduce the use of cars by providing attractive, reliable and efficient public transport as a realistic alternative for many journeys. Clearly, if people think that the roads are unsafe, they will not want to walk or to cycle.
The Government's road safety strategy is a joint effort by many Departments, with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions co-ordinating. The Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, for example, are primarily responsible for enforcement, justice and victim support, be it for people who have been involved in accidents, or for families who have had to suffer the sad consequences.
Similarly, the Department of Health is responsible for the care of the injured. We are pleased to be part of its new accidental injury taskforce, which is looking at accidents of all types, whether they occur at home, work or play or when travelling between them.
To start with the freshest news, it is only a few hours since Lord Whitty, who has lead responsibility for road safety in my Department, joined the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), at the launch of the Government's consultation paper on penalties for road traffic offences. We are applying the results of research to what we do and we want responses to our ideas. It is better to go forward with consensus.
Through the Home Office-led review that has produced the consultation paper, we have been looking for a robust package of measures to reduce drink driving. The review has specifically considered raising the minimum disqualification period for first-time, high-risk offenders from one year to two and making drink driving an offence for which a convicted driver has to retake the driving test.
We hope to clarify the law to allow the police to breath-test in locations where they suspect drink driving to be taking place, without having to have grounds for suspicion in each individual case. That is not random breath testing, but it will allow the police to take a more targeted, intelligence-led approach to that branch of enforcement.
On drug driving, which is already an offence, we are continuing our research into how drugs may affect drivers and into effective counter-measures, such as drug-testing devices. The "Cannabis and Driving" report, which was published last Friday, shows that driving under the influence of cannabis can be a hazard, although the effects are less drastic than those of alcohol. We are strengthening enforcement. The police are training officers to recognise the symptoms of drug use and impairment. We intend to give the police powers to test for drugs at the roadside.
Although it was not possible to commit ourselves to legislation on such matters in this Session, advance drafting of a new safety Bill was announced in the Queen's speech. Thai is the most likely vehicle for the final proposals when we have been able to take account of views expressed in response to the consultation. If I might offer some advice to hon. Members present, I am sure that it would be a good idea to respond now to the


proposals in the consultation paper and, if necessary, draw attention to proposals that they favour, but which are not covered, rather than waiting for firmer proposals to come before the House.

Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend tempts me; I have a long list. I thank him for his invitation. I concur fully with the observations made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). Will my hon. Friend accept the first consultation from me? Page 15 of the consultation document deals with sentences and sets out the averages for sentences over five years. The figures for sentences in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for Colchester are incredibly low. Will my hon. Friend bring that point firmly to the attention of the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary? Will he also look carefully at ensuring that driving bans do not run concurrently with prison sentences but are consecutive and, preferably, that they are life bans?

Mr. Hill: I shall draw both the points that my hon. Friend made so forcefully to the attention of the Lord Chancellor and other relevant Ministers. As of this moment, I can declare the consultation period open.
Although we have a while to wait for the safety Bill, the House will know that the Vehicles (Crime) Bill successfully completed its Second Reading yesterday. One of its measures provides for the transfer of some of the income from speeding fines so that it can be used to help pay for more safety cameras and the processing of more penalty notices. That will bring to the whole country the proven benefits of some successful pilot schemes that have been running in eight police authority areas, including Essex, where the hon. Member for Colchester has his constituency.
I know that safety cameras are not everyone's pet scheme—certainly not those who are fined or have penalty points added to their licence. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston rightly said, it is nonsense for some people and some newspapers to describe them as a form of stealth tax. They make a valuable contribution to road safety and, if people stop speeding, the cameras will stop flashing.
On education, the already heavy demands of the national curriculum mean that road safety cannot be taught as a subject in its own right. However, it will be covered as part of personal health and social education. We are also looking for ways to work the issues of safety into other lessons such as maths, physics and geography, where it can provide a link to the world outside through examples taken from real life.
One thing that does not transfer well from the classroom to the street is kerb craft. We are planning to encourage local authorities to give more practical experience at the roadside through a national pilot network of training schemes for children of about six and seven. We will be offering to pay authorities to employ co-ordinators to set up local schemes and to recruit parent volunteers to do the training. Initially at least, this may be mainly in areas of social exclusion because that is where statistics show that the children who are most at risk live and play.
It is also important to get road safety messages across to older children. Independent research has confirmed the value of the Driving Standard's Agency's schools programme—presentations by driving examiners about learning to drive and road safety generally. We are doubling the number of programmes this year to 1,500, reaching some 750,000 students aged 16 to 18. Further increases will follow.
The main role of the Driving Standards Agency, however, is to help improve the quality of its own novice drivers and the people who train them. We want to improve the way in which learner drivers are tested. Since the road safety strategy was published, the Transport Act 2000 has provided new powers to enable us to introduce compulsory training schemes for users of different classes of motor vehicle and to regulate the providers of such training. We shall now be considering how to use those powers to help us to deliver the commitments in the strategy to improving driving standards and reducing the number of road casualties.
Many of the vehicles driven on our roads are being driven for work purposes. Research indicates that, mile for mile, company car drivers have accident rates that are 30 to 50 per cent. higher than those of comparable private drivers. We have established a task group to consider how best to prevent work-related road-traffic incidents. The group will be publishing a discussion document early next year and holding a conference to debate the issues raised in the document, before making recommendations to us.
Switching to two wheels for a moment, early in the new year, we shall be implementing a package of measures to improve learner rider safety while scrapping unnecessary restrictions. All learners will be taking a theory test, and car drivers qualifying in the future who want to ride a moped will have to take basic training like other learner riders. At the same time, we are abolishing the old "two years on, one year off' rule for provisional motorcycle licences. We think that a training requirement is a better approach to longer-term learner riders than a one-year disqualification.
As for the role of local transport departments, authorities must build in safety for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users as one of their priorities in their local transport plans. That entails an intensification of road engineering, pedestrian separation where necessary, and more home zones and other safe-speed areas.
Although we no longer have ring fencing for local safety schemes within the local transport plan system, after last week's announcements of their spending allocations for 2001–02, with indicative allocations for later years, authorities know that there will be no excuses for holding back on that type of expenditure. Ultimately, it is up to them. However, we know from their bids that we are allocating enough to fund 8,000 safety schemes in England alone in the next five years. Local authorities bid for them, and now they must deliver them.
Despite the new hands-off approach on local spending decisions, we are not backward in coming forward with advice. The Transport Research Laboratory is working on a guide to good practice in road safety for us, and our consultants on the safe city project in Gloucester—where the five-year project that we have been funding has shown the great benefits of adopting an area-wide approach—are writing up the results of that work, too. Both reports will


be launched at a special road safety conference, in June, that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents is organising for us.
Once again, I give my sincere thanks to the hon. Member for Colchester for raising this issue for debate. I hope that I have been able to respond to at least some of

his main concerns. I assure him that I shall check the Official Report to see whether, because of the pressure of time, any points have not been adequately dealt with. If so, I shall send him a fuller response.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve midnight.